Talk:India/Archive 37

Edit request on 05 June 2012
OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wikipedia the flag of india is depicted wrong. the circle in the middle is totally wrong some one fix it!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 * What is wrong about the flag? Please clarify sarvajna (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That circle should have 24 spoke wheels..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.231.43 (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the image in the infobox that already has 24 spokes? it is not actually part of the article and if you have any comment you should go to File talk:Flag of India.svg or you may get a better response at Commons:File talk:Flag of India.svg. MilborneOne (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

New bold edits to the lead
has made some changes to the lead, which I have reverted on the grounds that in a long standing FA such as India non-trivial edits need to be discussed on the talk page first. In the interests of continuing the discussion in the WP:BRD cycle, I am posting here. We cannot continue the discussion by edit warring and voicing our view points in edit summaries only. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work that way. If we were to go by your logic, all articles would be untouchable once they reach FA status.  As already pointed out in edit summary, you have also not addressed WHY you reverted these minor edits and why they shouldn't stand, as they were done to enhance the lead -- '[G]eographical area' is redundant as 'area' alone will do, and the location description of the island countries south of India parallels location descriptions of mainland countries in the prior sentence (they are not simply in the 'vicinity' of India, but generally to its south). You actually haven't made an opinion on the edits themselves, only that you alone were reverting them ... so it seems to be your opinion alone, smacks of article ownership, and arguably is more escalatory than anything else done.  So, I am reverting this, and will continue to on that basis, unless clearly explained and a consensus demonstrates otherwise.  Ubiquinoid (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it kind of does work that way. I've left you a warning for edit-warring, though I will not revert your edit since I have no opinion on the matter. What I do have is some advice: it is a better thing to make friends than enemies in a collaborative project. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. I will not have policy wonks reverting unjustifiably, despite being asked multiple times why.  Oh, WP:BRD is actually not a policy.  But, ignoring all rules kinda is.  I am not here to make friends, but the above definitely promotes enmity.  Ubiquinoid (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, yes. It is better to make friends than enemies. At the risk of sounding like a policy wonk, you don't have to break the bright line of 3R to be guilty of edit warring. I don't see how IAR would apply here: you are editing against consensus for no good reason. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, no - what consensus? No opponent has explained/discussed why they are reverting, which is an element of consensus (per policy, and please re-read that) -- they just are.  As for 3RR, that applies to all involved parties.  As for IAR, I am not unreasonable, but I won't stand for possessive article reversions without justification while said editors cite rules and expect the reverse.  That is all.  Ubiquinoid (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there is a consensus about an extra level of discussion being required for this page compared to most—especially changes to the lead, even if they are minor. Not so much because it is a featured article (even though that's what a couple of people have argued) but because it is one of the most viewed articles on all of Wikipedia. Edits and edit summary comments are easily missed by thousands of watchers who care about the page but don't keep up with changes on a daily basis (it is the 34th most watched page; 8th not counting Wikipedia, User, Portal, Help spaces, Main Page, etc. ). I don't know if there is a way to generate an up to date list of the most viewed pages over time, but according to the India page gets about a million views per month, from 2009 to now. Among pages about countries only the United States has significantly more. The United Kingdom ranks about the same as India. Among all Wikipedia articles only a few are more viewed than India. Facebook gets about 3 million views a month. Justin Bieber gets about 1.5 million (while Barack Obama only gets about 750,000, go figure). The point being this page is unlike most on Wikipedia and that there is a long-standing consensus that changes, especially to the lead, should be discussed first. After seeing this thread and looking at the page history I've now seen your rather minor changes and don't have a problem with them. But I thought I might try to explain why you've met resistance. Pfly (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No one owns this page and consensus need not be reached to change a full stop or for minor edits, if the edits were not correct any editor has right to remove it and explain why the edits were not correct. So lets get it cleared to the user Ubiquinoid on why his edits were not correct.--sarvajna (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a myriad near-equivalent ways of stating facts. The onus is not on the rest of us; it is rather on Ubiquiniod to explain why the previous text was inadequate and why his is a significant enough improvement to warrant changing the lead. We can't have Ubiquinoid and every other editor in the throes of WP:Lead fixation tramping through the lead. Now for his edits. The original sentence was "In the Indian ocean India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and the Maldives." The point of the sentence was to continue discussing India's geographical neighbors in the manner the previous sentence done for land borders. Although India doesn't have maritime borders with either Sri Lanka or the Maldives, it is in their vicinity, enough in their vicinity, I might add, for both to be considered a part of South Asia. Ubiquinoid has changed this sentence to "The island countries of Sri Lanka and the Maldives are to the south." Although I have some sympathy for mentioning "island countries," it can also easily be a verbal overkill similar to overlinking. What if the next drive-by editor wants to add "the land locked country of Nepal" in the previous sentence on land borders? As for these countries being to the south, why are we mentioning this fact? How is an average reader to know how far south they are? Are they in the Southern Hemisphere? Perhaps even an outpost of South Asia in Antarctica? And why favor the south? Why not also add, "the island countries of Mauritius and Madagascar are to the southwest?"

Now, you see how much time I have wasted in attempting to talk to just one somewhat cantankerous lead-obsessed drive-by, and I haven't even got to all his changes. Is my time on Wikipedia worth the trouble, I find myself increasingly asking these days. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  10:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler would geographical area not be a verbal overkill? --sarvajna (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ubiquinoid probably likes the confrontation, as evidenced in the edit summaries and responses here, and the many edit-war notices on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * TY sa and Pf - those are reasoned responses which I can accept. F&F, I had since explained, but it is also ironic you requested of me to discuss these minor edits, and then drone on about having to do same on the talk page.  Again, please read the consensus page - it is contingent on an editor who reverts to explain why they do so, and then it is taken to the talk page.  Citing FA status, or 'you don't like it' is insufficient, frankly.  'Geographical area' is overkill, and 'island countries' is a lot clearer than 'in the vicinity', since even those countries with land borders are also in India's vicinity, and that makes it clear they are islands and not bordered on land.  (As it was, you have to know they are islands to infer.)  And, how can it be verbal overkill when it is slightly more concise?  As for why Sri Lanka and Maldives, well, they are nearby (and were already noted in the lead), whereas others you have indicated are not and nearer to Africa.  In essence, literally, argumentum ad nauseum.  No comment on your efforts and commitment here, tramping or otherwise.
 * Drm, frankly, muzzle it. Argumentum ad hominem.  I am here to edit and tweak articles, and have better things to do than back-and-forth over what are minor edits, not to deal with your BS feedback. Ubiquinoid (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Muzzle it." That's precious. I wasn't making an argument anyway (I commented on the content of the edit above, in case you missed it), just a comment on your style. You like these minor edits well enough to go to war over it, here and elsewhere. Nice meeting you, BTW. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I challenge those who challenge minor edits without due reason; others, not so much. This is not the venue for your other observations regarding my editing behaviour, or me yours.  But since you have 'no opinion on the matter', that should end this particular thread.  Ubiquinoid (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal
I'm afraid Ubiqiniod's edits have made a lead, the description of whose maritime boundaries was vague to begin with, even more vague. The point of the geographical description is to localize India as precisely as is possible in a short (textual) space. The countries that share land borders have been described precisely; they delimit India's land borders. The same needs to be done for the sea. A more precise description of the India's surroundings both land and maritime would be: India shares land borders with Pakistan to the west; China, Nepal, and Bhutan to the north-east; and Burma and Bangladesh to the east. It is bounded on the south-west by the Arabian Sea, on the south-east by the Bay of Bengal, and on the south by the Indian Ocean, where the Palk Strait and the Gulf of Mannar separate India from Sri Lanka immediately to its southeast and some 400 km separate India from the Maldives to its southwest. India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands, lying some 750 miles south-east of mainland India, share a maritime border with Thailand and Indonesia.

I believe this is a more precise and informative than what we currently have. As for "geographical area," it was put in at a time when some people had suggested that the notion of area is not that obvious. If you simply measure India's using a tape measure, what you'll get will be much larger. The Geographical area is calculated using latitude and longitude only, or at least that is what the Geographical area page read some six years ago when the expression was put into the lead. You could accuse the India page of not keeping up with the notion of "geographical area," but not, simplistically, as Ubiquinoid would have it, of being redundant. One can get rid of "geographical area," and replace it with "total area" (i.e. area of land + internal waters). Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is unclear how my edits made the lead more vague than the preceding version (e.g., 'south' is more precise than 'vicinity'). As for this proposal, overall, it seems a little TMI for the lead, since it is supposed to be a summary.  But I suppose may be fine with tweaks ... and, regardless, all details seem totally appropriate in particular in the 'Geography' section, which is actually lacking them.  Also note that, technically, the Indian Ocean includes the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal (and other adjoining gulfs and straits) – so, arguably, those oceanographic details can be moved down for brevity.  'Geographical area' is rather redundant, since the article and reference is about the country, but substituting in ' total area' is fine with me – it’s clearer and the adjacent text prior links to the listing of countries by total area. So, if it is to be changed (+total):

India shares land borders with Pakistan to the west; China, Nepal, and Bhutan to the north-east; and Burma and Bangladesh to the east. It is bounded on the south by the Indian Ocean – and, in turn, by the Arabian Sea on the south-west and Bay of Bengal on the south-east – where the Palk Strait and Gulf of Mannar separate India from Sri Lanka to its immediate south-east, and the Maldives are some 400 km to the south-west. India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands, some 1200 km south-east of the mainland, share a maritime border with Burma, Thailand and Indonesia.


 * If we wanted to be even briefer:

India shares land borders with Pakistan to the west; China, Nepal, and Bhutan to the north-east; and Burma and Bangladesh to the east. It is bounded on the south by the Indian Ocean, with Sri Lanka to the immediate south-east across the Palk Strait and Gulf of Mannar and the Maldives some 400 km to the south-west. Also, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, some 1200 km south-east of the mainland, share a maritime border with Burma, Thailand and Indonesia.


 * with all details in the 'Geography' section below. Ubiquinoid (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, both your versions fail the English prose test. The geography paragraph in the lead is not a summary of the geography section of the article.  Your point about Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea being a part of the Indian ocean is well taken, but not mentioning them makes the language sound illogical, such as yours has become.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I have fixed one error in my version. It now reads: India shares land borders with Pakistan to the west; China, Nepal, and Bhutan to the north-east; and Burma and Bangladesh to the east. It is bounded on the south-west by the Arabian Sea, on the south-east by the Bay of Bengal, and on the south by the Indian Ocean, where the Palk Strait and the Gulf of Mannar separate India from Sri Lanka.  Some 400 km separate India from the Maldives to its southwest.  India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands, lying some 750 miles south-east of mainland India, share a maritime border with Thailand and Indonesia.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * However it ends up reading, we should probably link to maritime boundary, as the entire concept is relatively new, historically speaking, and potentially confusing. Also, there are different kinds of maritime boundaries. Technically India shares maritime boundaries with all most of its non-landlocked neighbors (excepting China of course!). Apparently India has by treaty defined maritime boundaries with Sri Lanka and the Maldives and, I think, Thailand and Indonesia. I think at least some of India's maritime boundaries are disputed (eg, the one with Pakistan might still be). Before looking at some maps just now I thought the Maldives were a bit farther south and might not share a well-defined maritime boundary with India, but it looks like they do. There's info and a map in this book,, but from 1995 so perhaps out of date. The details of this topic don't belong in the lead, obviously, and might not even be worth getting into in the Geography section—though perhaps it would be worth saying a little something there, especially if there are notable disputes. If nothing else we should link maritime boundary if the concept is mentioned. Pfly (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I just linked the existing mention of maritime border in the lead, but the wording should perhaps be changed a little. As it is it seems to imply that India shares a maritime boundary with Thailand and Indonesia but not necessarily with Sri Lanka or the Maldives. Pfly (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, for what it's worth, it seems that India's maritime boundaries are not in dispute, from what I can tell from some quick research—except a relatively minor issue with Bangladesh that appears to be currently in the process of negotiation, according to (perhaps not an unbiased source). Bangladesh and Burma may have some minor disputes that effect their maritime boundaries with India. But all of this is probably too inconsequential to warrant mention on this page. Maybe on the Geography of India, if they aren't already mentioned there. Pfly (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Fails the English prose test' F&F? Another unequivocal and rich judgement apparently.  Such is the folly and best effort of cramming too much into a lead.  Your version is definitely not superior.  The lead, and the country's location description, should be concise - and all the versions above, save the last, are not really.  Details can be added below in the appropriate section.  I prefer the status quo in the lead in favour of what may be a contorted alternate.
 * As well, pF, Burma also shares a maritime border with the islands (in addition to just Indonesia and Thailand), which I will update.   Ubiquinoid (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Let others who weigh in here be the judge of prose. The status quo is fine, but it does not include your recent edits other than the one about maritime boundary. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  22:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition, the current and proposed versions (save the last of mine) are logical failures in some measure. Regarding the southerly waters, e.g., other volumes generally cite that India is flanked by the AS & BoB, or the Indian Ocean to the south -- not both, which is correct per the IHO's delineation of water bodies.   It currently reads as if they are distinct bodies.  And, to clarify, the status quo is as of this note.  Ubiquinoid (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We'll await inputs from others, both about your prose and about what constitutes status quo. I would especially like to hear from RegentsPark and SpacemanSpiff, two admins who have long overseen the article.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any consensus yet, I'm reinstating the original wording until a consensus emerges. We need a more extended discussion.  Part of the problem is that various sources are not agreed on the definitions of these bodies of water.  The publication of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) Limits of Oceans and Seas, 3rd edition, 1953, suggests that India is bounded on the west by the Arabian and Laccadive Seas, not  Arabian alone.  Moreover, the IHO publication also states, "Oceans exclude the seas lying within each of them, the limits of which are described elsewhere in this publication."  It is not clear to me how to interpret that sentence.  Do they mean that the term "Indian Ocean," in general, does not refer also to the various seas lying within it, or that in this publication its limits consist of the regions remaining, on account of the various seas (within) being defined separately.  If it is the former, then India is not bounded by the Indian Ocean.  (See also Wikipedia's page, Borders of the oceans.  There is also an issue with the term "maritime boundary."  It seems that it is sometimes resolved politically between countries.  So, I'm not sure, it belongs here.  One possibility is to use the various seas alone to describe peninsular India's surroundings.  In such an approach one would say,  Peninsular India is bounded on the north-west by the Arabian Sea, on the south-west by Laccadive Sea, which also bounds the island nations of Sri Lanka and the Maldives, and on the east by the Bay of Bengal, the southern waters of which, lying across the Andaman Sea from Burma, Thailand, and Indonesia, contain India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Obviously, it can also be split into two sentences: Peninsular India is bounded on the north-west by the Arabian Sea, on the south-west by Laccadive Sea, which also bounds the island nations of Sri Lanka and the Maldives, and on the east by the Bay of Bengal. The southern waters of the bay, lying across the Andaman Sea from Burma, Thailand, and Indonesia, contain India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One other editor above was fine with those edits - so I have restored them. As for the IHO reckoning, I completely agree with it, and so that can stand in place.  (See also Geography of India.)  As for what is and is not included in the oceans, that could be a matter of debate but (emphasis added) 'the limits given of the ... [o]ceans exclude the seas lying within each of them ' would seem to imply the seas are included in the oceans, whose described limits are less any of their tributaries.  The CIA Factbook, for example, considers the oceans to include the main and tributary bodies per the IHO - thus, the Indian Ocean includes the AS, LS, BoB, and oceanic waters south.  It, nonetheless, seems prudent to note in the lead that to India's south lies the Indian Ocean (after all, it was named after the subcontinent) OR the AS, LS, BoB, but not both, and include expanded rhetoric in the geography section.  I am unsure what the issue is with 'maritime border' - that text was in the prior version, and the link expands on the notion.  Out to 200 NM (EEZ), as exhibited, the islands share maritime borders with Thailand, Indonesia, AND Burma.[EEZ#India]  As for your latest proposals, they appear to fail the prose test (too may comma splices, for instance)... and prefer the status quo or prior proposals with significant rewrite. Ubiquinoid (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you think things clearly and say them all at once, instead of making a dozen edits in quick succession (all without edit summaries). It becomes impossible for others to reply to you.  As for a comma splice, can you spot two independent clauses in the sentence?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are replying, so it is not impossible. But noted.  Overall, you seem to have a penchant for ad hominem commentary to detract from your own editing -- you did not really deal with commentary above, and instead comment on style.  Anyhow, the first of your second proposals is a run-on, and the second is a contorted piece of English.  Anyhow, I have restored the recent version that is agreeable to more editors than just you. Ubiquinoid (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where are the two independent clauses? I'm still waiting.  I'm not about to let you slime out of that one.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you know what the concept of reciprocity is? Until you wrap your head around that, I will await commentary from other involved editors.  Ubiquinoid (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So you don't really know the meaning of comma splice or run-on sentence? Next time don't use those words.  This discussion is about improving the India page, not using incoherent language to have your way.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I do, but since you are fond of making unequivocal judgements with little justification that segue from the matter at hand and seem to have article ownership issues, I will weigh in when someone else has something meaningful and coherent to say about the content, and not just in patois-like English. This really is making mountains out of molehills, for what are minor (and more accurate) edits to the lead.  Ubiquinoid (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In my sixth year on Wikipedia, I obviously won't edit war, but I want you to know that you are editing without consensus. Here is some evidence: You suggest that someone has supported your edit. I can't seem to figure out who this is. I don't know that Pfly's casual remark means that he considers that your edit is a significant enough improvement on the previous wording to tinker with the lead. Even if it does, it does not constitute consensus. As for edit warring, I may have reverted you, but in the end have not imposed my will. This can't be said for your reverts. You have always had the last word with reverts. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  22:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edit was reverted by a senior admin, Sir Nick, who hasn't edited the India page for many years and, consequently, has no ax to grind.
 * Admin Drmies, who too hasn't edited the India page, stated above that you were edit warring.
 * Admin Drmies stated in a post above that you were editing against consensus.
 * Admin Drmies left this 3RR warning on your talk page, which you quickly blanked in this edit with edit summary, "removing notice from challenged admin."

While, on the face of it, the edits themselves seem minor and not problematic, I've reverted Ubiquinoid for the simple reason that he/she should seek consensus if someone objects to the change. I agree that the fact that this is an FA does not mean that the article is fixed in stone and the text cannot be changed but the reality is that the language in use in the article was thrashed out after a lot of discussion. If somebody objects to a change, bring the change to the talk page. Repeatedly trying to force things is not a great idea. --regentspark (comment) 22:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You may want to direct your commentary to F&F, then, since he reverted initially without really explaining why (as repeatedly asked) on the talk page - how many times do the various admins need to be reminded of that fundamental tenet of consensus? So, who is really forcing things here?  But, since crap begets crap, you can forage amongst yourselves.  I am done with this.  Ubiquinoid (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm now ready to go out on a limb and say that is a sock of banned editor .   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * RE: The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) Limits of Oceans and Seas and its statement "Oceans exclude the seas lying within each of them, the limits of which are described elsewhere in this publication." It is pretty clear to me that they mean within this publication they are defining seas separately from oceans, and they decline to say which seas are part of which oceans. It is possible they intended to keep oceans and seas strictly distinct and "non-hierarchical", although I don't think that was their intention. I think their intention was to create a system in which one could state a maritime local with as much precision as possible. So, "Bay of Bengal" is more precise than "Indian Ocean", whether or not the Bay of Bengal is considered part of the Indian Ocean. In any case it is trivial to find heaps of reliable sources that do say such-and-such a sea is part of such-and-such an ocean. The IHO is obviously an authoritative source for defining oceans and seas, but they do not have the final say on the matter and I think some people take their dictates a little too seriously. It has come up with regard to Hudson Bay and whether or not the bay is part of the Atlantic or Arctic Oceans, and therefore which rivers in North America flow to the Atlantic or Arctic (the Hudson Bay drainage basin is a sizable portion of northern North America). In short, it should be trivial to found excellent sources saying a particular sea is part of a particular ocean. The IHO can't trump a bunch of equally excellent sources. Pfly (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, my earlier comment was simply to say I didn't have a problem with Ubiquinoid's original edits (I haven't kept up on subsequent edits), but I also pointed out that the text still had problems. In any case it looks like Ubiquinoid is out of the picture. I don't have a problem with your proposed leads, F&f. In fact it may be best in the lead to keep things simple. A lot of the details that have been brought up here probably more properly belong in the Geography section or the Geography of India page. Pfly (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pfly for your detailed reply. I'm about to take a Wikibreak to recharge my batteries.  Why don't you and RegentsPark and any other editors who want to give their feedback come up with the right language and change the lead (as well as the Geography of India page).  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try, time permitting! Pfly (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Unrest in India
http://www.theborneopost.com/2012/07/25/nine-more-killed-in-india-unrest-170000-displaced/ Does this warrant its own section? Maybe its own article? Thoughts? Korentop (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say no. A long term festering situation would need to be mentioned but we don't know where this is going.--regentspark (comment) 12:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 August 2012
Hockey is not India's nation game.

Reference:- http://www.deccanherald.com/content/268727/in-rti-reply-centre-says.html

Bikastanti (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks! Mdann52 (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Under Sport sub-section it still says "India's official national sport is field hockey" and the picture on the right has the caption "Field hockey is the national sport of India". Is that correct? WBRSin (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - Anbu121 ( talk me ) 19:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 August 2012 for National Language mentione as "None"
The National Language mentione as "None" is wrong and it is "Hindi". Kindly please update this asap, I just saw this and requesting you for the same.

27.106.58.123 (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

❌ India does not have any national language. See the reference cited next to the word "none". -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 20:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 August 2012
It is very dispointing that the Flag is incorrect. There should be Chakra in middle with 24 spikes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.251.170.98 (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

kindly change the number of states to 31

84.255.149.200 (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you a reliable reference for the addition of three new states, cant see anything in the news I would have thought any new states would be big news. The Indian Government still thinks it has 28  but that could be out of date if they had created three new ones today.  MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Education in India
At least there should be one section about education in India: Education in India -User:Chu86happychu (talk)

Exactly my point! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BharatRakshak (talk • contribs) 09:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct Portrayal of India through Updated and Current Images
I am disappointed to to see that the images used to describe various issues on wiki article on India looks somewhat biased. Like in the society section, no images of cultural or folk dance but a image of rural methods to prepare food. Same is for the other sections like ox plowing of vegetation fields. There is no mention of the modern India in images and the articles portrays visually, India like a very undeveloped third world country. Please add images that truly represents the today's India. About the current infrastructure, Commonwealth Games held and India's representation in Olympics and that sort of material, more positive. I am not saying to cream it, but still what is true and recent should be portrayed. Thanks. - Sidd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.98.224.132 (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. But you should not be ashamed of shy away from embracing your past heritage, they are what gave India its unique identity in the first place. Mrt 3366  (Talk page?)  (New section?) 05:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No one's "ashamed" here! You should be careful while using such words! And I too, agree with Sidd as this seems a deliberate attempt to tarnish India's image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BharatRakshak (talk • contribs) 09:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean it that way, please try assuming good faith, at least try not assuming bad faith. Mrt 3366  (Talk page?)  (New section?) 09:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, I assume good faith, but there were many others before who found it inappropriate and I'm sure that it'd be in the archives. Glad, you could make some pictorial improvements in such a short period of time.
 * Regards, --BharatRakshak (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Structure of the article
The structure of article is not correct, lacking vital information and seems too short as compared to those of other countries. There ain't any sections relating to Science & Technology, Education, Infrastructure, Health, Tourism, Energy, Industries, Transportation and the images have been deliberately chosen to portray the weaker side of India. I demand these issues to be addressed immediately as the article has a daily traffic of over 3000 and is being viewed a million times in a month. Also, this is the first link that pops up in search engines' results. --BharatRakshak (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried to update the article by adding images of modernized India. But I think your query is already addressed in FAQ section above. Mrt 3366  (Talk page?)  (New section?) 09:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope you can add the above mentioned sections so that the article looks complete.--BharatRakshak (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't. I simply can't.


 * Mrt 3366  (Talk page?)  (New section?) 10:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I completely understand what you're saying. But, there has to be a format or a template laid down for articles related to countries and according to which, all the points should be covered. I think that we should rope in some senior editors who have contributed significantly to countries' specific articles, administrators and then arrive at a consensus. Not just by a handful of editors (and I'm not talking about you :) but the editors who are too stubborn to listen to others as it's evident that many people want those sections to be covered). I noticed that previous versions of the article had these sections and some good images. I believe that the article should be modified in a neutral light so that people should can actually gain something out of it. Forgive me for the strong language. --BharatRakshak (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The content of an article is determined through consensus. This article is a featured article (means it's complete). However, if you still want to bring about a massive change to the structure,
 * You might start an RfC. To do that, first succinctly lay down the issues and then put forth a proposal in a new thread on this page in such a way that others can properly understand and support or oppose or simply comment on your proposal. That is, I think, the most effective way to reach a broad consensus, albeit it may take about a month to settle.Or,
 * You could visit India project and raise your problems there. For doing this quickly click here.
 * If you have any queries or proposals, you can visit my talk page and post messages there. Mrt 3366  (Talk page?)  (New section?) 14:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

First plastic surgery - in India 600 years before Christ
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Many Hollywood stars and world famous singers today are going for plastic surgery to make them look nicer and more sexy. Less well known is that the plastic surgery performed in India - 600 years before Christ. According to Croatian daily 24 hours, and there are about written texts in Sanskrit which describes in detail the procedures, and most were also performed on the nose. 78.2.101.254 (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Latest blanket revert
Recent blanket revert just confounded me. I start this thread so as to know what was so unacceptable in my edits that the user rashly reverted everything? <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 07:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's the way it works here. You made a bold edit to a longstanding FA without discussing anything on the talk page first.  Chipmunk has reverted your drastic edits.  You now need to discuss every proposed edit here and gain consensus for each.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologise for it coming off so harshly. Your edits greatly increased the number of images on this page, which added a great deal of clutter. This is not a case of WP:DEW (which is really not something you want to use as an argument for reverting a revert of your edits, but that's another matter). Images in wikipedia are meant so support the text, rather than dominating it. We have a whole MOS to do with their implementation, WP:MOSIMAGES. One part of this that was very pertinent to your edits was the bit about text sandwiching. It's important text isn't cluttered by the pictures, it not only looks bad, but in some cases can actually hamper reading, as and images sometimes overlap making the text unreadable. If that isn't happening on your monitor, then you still have to think about the possibility of it happening on the screen of someone who has a different monitor or software, in the spirit of WP:ACCESS. Regards, CMD (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As a postscript to Chipmunk's reply here, let me add that the choices of images in the article were not made lightly. They were, earlier this year, chosen from hundreds of nominated images in a labored consensus involving dozens of editors lasting over two months.  I'm afraid such major community effort can be negotiated only every so often.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @ - I know full well "how things work here". IIRC, I added images of mountains, cities, etc. I explained most of the things in my edit summaries. It's User:Chipmunkdavis's job to validate his reversal since (s)he is the one who reverted without explanation. There was nothing controversial among the things I added, it's chipmunk's turn to explain why he felt the need to revert. “that's the way it works here” — is nowhere near good enough. If chipmunk doesn't explicate his reservations against my edits I will change it again. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 13:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave a short summary reason in the edit summary, and explained my reasons more fully in the paragraph above. See also WP:BRD. CMD (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Images in wikipedia are meant so support the text, rather than dominating it." - where does it say that here images are dominating the text and not supplementing it? Also, where did I contravene MOS:IMAGES? If you think it was cluttered, I will say that the inclusion of images didn't make it any more cluttered than it already is now. Seems like it's a subjective objection. Nevertheless you didn't just deleted the images but also the contents, so I will implore you to restore the content which was backed by reliable sources. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 13:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an objective guideline noted at WP:MOSIMAGES which I explicitly mentioned above, that of text sandwiching. Your changes clearly and obviously sandwiched the text. If you want that guideline changed, you'll have to discuss it there.
 * Would you please note here what changes you'd like backed by what sources? The only changes I can see are just economic ranking ones, and I think it'd be good to have the whole different economic sources discussion at least present on the talk page before the edits go straight in. I've seen even this erupt into large disputes before, and India is a touchy article already. CMD (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "If you want that guideline changed, you'll have to discuss it there." - that's a tautology. "Would you please note here what changes you'd like backed by what sources?" - I didn't understand what you're trying to convey with that. "it'd be good to have the whole different economic sources discussion at least present on the talk page before the edits go straight in." - you can think that. But I think I provided a reliable source and updated the info, I did my part as a BOLD editor. Like I am saying again and again, it's your job as the reverter, to explain to me and other concerned editors, why it is not acceptable. Do you understand my point? It's not me who should be doing the explaining now. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 13:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Noting where to discuss something isn't a tautology. Anyway, you said I reverted "contents". Please note here what those contents are, and the sources they're from. If other editors agree to your changes, then you can edit them into the article. CMD (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but it is a tautology, because I know where to go if I want the guideline change. Also a redundant statement since I never said that I wanted the guideline changed. "Please note here what those contents are, and the sources they're from. If other editors agree to your changes, then you can edit them into the article." Oh! Then that can only mean that you didn't even check my edits before reverting it. You tell me what was unacceptable. I don't need to give you any more justifications (you already reverted my edits, didn't you?), you are the one who deemed reversal as necessary, now I want to know, why? <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 13:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not what a tautology is. Anyway, it's the WP:BURDEN of those seeking to make the change to justify them. The only burden on the reverter is to explain their revert, and participate in a discussion once it arises. CMD (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. I think, I provided a reliable source and updated the info, I did my part as a WP:BOLD editor. I repeat, it's your job as the reverter, to explain to me and other concerned editors, why it is not acceptable. Do you understand my point?
 * "That's not what a tautology is." - We can quibble over the phraseology and semantics, or we can discuss your reason for blanket reversal. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 14:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed both WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN. I've asked you to clarify what exactly the content is you're talking about, specifically asking for confirmation at one point that it was just economic stats, but you have refused to do this. If you do post your content changes here, I'd be more than happy to comment on them. Until that point though, I'm afraid there's little I can do. CMD (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "You seem to have missed both WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN." - No. I have not. It's your perception. "I've asked you to clarify what exactly the content is you're talking about" - and I am asking why are you not able to tell me that even though you have reverted it? It means you blindly reverted my edit without checking it thoroughly. You should be more responsible. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 14:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's usually considered poor form to change an edit that has been replied to. My edit summary noted it was a blanket change. Editors aren't expected to spend their time looking through every detail of large edits to separate the good from the bad. You can either continue to try and use this discussion to disparage my editing form, or constructively move it forward by focusing on content. CMD (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Editors aren't expected to spend their time looking through every detail of large edits to separate the good from the bad." - apparently some editors are expected to do just that after their edits have undergone blanket reversal and all of their efforts are put to vain in one shot. And where does it assert that anyway? Admit it that some portion of your reversal was needless and utterly irresponsible. I am disappointed with you. "poor form to ..." - oh give it a rest, will you?<P>"constructively move it forward by focusing on content." If only you follow your own preaching. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 14:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to gain consensus here, Mrt3366, for every non-trivial edit you make to this FA. That has been the longstanding policy on this page, a policy hewn out of numerous RfCs dating all the way back to 2007. Thus far, you haven't gained consensus for anything, only harangued us in long monologues. You are wasting time, yours and ours. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The best thing for you to do would be to propose an image here, explain which image it should replace in the main article and why, and then let the discussion proceed. It will have to be done one image at a time.  In light of the fact that this page has only earlier this year arrived  a two-month long, excruciatingly achieved, consensus on images, I might warn you that it will likely not be easy to rehash this with any dispatch.  The discussion about images cannot, and I repeat cannot, be made in edit summaries.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I will do it eventually, don't worry. You have given me no other option. But first let's recapitulate, I made several edits which would otherwise be considered minor/acceptable changes, but all of them got reverted. And then as a corollary to my conversation with the reverter, I would say, it was sort of revealed that (s)he didn't even bother to check the textual changes I brought in, before reverting each one of them in one stroke. Yet, somehow I am the one who is to blame for the wastage of time? "That has been the longstanding policy on this page, a policy hewn out of numerous RfCs" — I want to see what discussion took place that established the policy which you're alluding to. Where is the discussion that says none can add any relevant image on their own, and if they do it will be reverted. Who made you the guardian of this article? You've barred me so far from improving wikipedia and didn't even explain me why my edits were reverted. The only rationale you seem to be foisting is, editors just can't edit the page without your (CMD & you) approval. Please understand that I am not obliged to follow your made-up rules. I beseech you to give me the links of the earlier discussion, or explain to me why my edits were reverted, otherwise let me go about editing the page. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 15:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  don't you know few people own this page, how dare you make changes to this article without their consent, this is how it works here. Mrt3366 did not just add images he added other contents as well. I see that (s)he made edits after few edit requests made by some IP address, apparently few editors are not interested in making any changes to the article, this is not an article about some Yugoslavia where the content might not change for a long long time. Its expected that few things keep changing in this article. It would be fine if you can explain what was wrong with his edits(apart from the image thing). --sarvajna (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mrt3366, It is also best not to spam other user talk pages, as you are now doing, with requests to comment here. Drumming up fake consensus by eliciting opinions of selectively chosen editors is in violation of Wikipedia policy.  As for editing this page, these rules apply to everyone.  If I want to make an edit, I too bring it up on this page first.  Please read Wikipedia policy on Featured articles and ownership.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mrt3366, Finally your claim (in your reply above to me), "I know full well 'how things work here'. IIRC, I added images of mountains, cities, etc. I explained most of the things in my edit summaries." does not seem to stand up to scrutiny. Here are some examples: a) You added major POV-content on the subject of caste in this edit without any edit summary, b) you added an image on the Mumbai skyline and made changes to India's GDP in this edit again without any edit summary, without even indicating what section the edit was made in, c) you added three images, starting with this edit, each with edit summary, "adding image, feel free to revert" (what explanation is that?), d) you added five images and a new rotation template in this edit with no edit summary, e) you added two images to the economy section in this edit again without any edit summary, e) you removed five images (added earlier through strenuous consensus) in this edit again without any edit summary, and f) you moved images out of the rotation template and besides added an outsized image, again without any edit summary.  That is when Chipmunkdavis stepped in.  Where are those vaunted edit summaries that supposedly provided the rationale for your edits?  I don't see any.  Be warned that disingenuous defense of unilateral edits borders on disruptive editing.  In my view, Chipmunk has been very patient with you.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @sarvajna "Mrt3366 don't you know few people own this page, how dare you make changes to this article without their consent, this is how it works here." - few people own this page? But I thought WP:OWN was valid here too. Do I smell sarcasm here?
 * @F&F You are cherry-picking the edits with no summaries. There might have been one or two edits where I missed the summary, yeah. But, does that serve as grounds for a reversal of almost 2 days of work by multiple editors? I do not think so. You talk a lot about the "past discussions", I want to see those discussions, myself (Link please). You are acting as the exclusive owner of this article. I do not like that. I have every right to know why my edits were reverted. So far you haven't given me any. Now, either you restore the textual info which you deem fit or tell me why not, otherwise simply step away. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 05:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Mrt3366, I think you're getting unnecessarily upset here. You added many images to the article in good faith and CMD did do a blanket revert but it is hard to see how else he could have undone the image changes. Doing an edit by edit revert is not going to work because of conflicting edits. Going through the article line by line and removing images that were causing the problem is also not easy. On the other hand, it is not that hard for you to make a case for any changes you'd like to make here on the talk page. Images have been contentious on this particular article (everyone has their own favorite images that they would like to see) and fowler is correct that we had a long process of voting on images a little while ago (I had forgotten about that else I would have warned you). There is no way that any editor can add or subtract images from this article without due consensus. You acted in good faith and did not know that but now you do so just let it go. --regentspark (comment) 22:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "it is hard to see how else he could have undone the image changes" - by checking the diffs and not removing my textual additions, for a start. Nobody promised that it would always be easy editing on wikipedia. You patrolled my edits, pruned some and I accepted. These guys are acting inappropriately by not depositing the links and practically bullying me away from improving this article which I am starting to loathe. If I were you I would not have defended that. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 05:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 September 2012
The map of "A clickable map of the 28 states and 7 union territories of India" in "Subdivisions" section shows wrong information. That is, "2. Arunachal Pradesh" is a part of India. this is wrongly shown there. Change this.

202.185.74.72 (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Arunachal Pradesh is a disputed state that seems to be controlled by India. No change. A boat   that can float!   (watch me float!)  05:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes that I seek to bring
First, I don't disagree that much with CMD or F&F. Yes, I concede that I could have discussed the additions and it would have been more sensible. For some reason I lost my cool, I unaffectedly thank all involved editors for bearing with me. Forget about the pictures for the time-being (i.e. I will discuss them here in detail later), here is what I am talking about now: <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 07:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please give a tag on my talk once you reply, I don't mind it. <font face="Comic Sans MS"  color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 08:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The GDP estimates of IMF and World Bank tend to differ. Most of the other articles on countries like Indonesia, United States, China etc. use IMF data. Using IMF estimates looks like the convention to me, maybe there is a formal consensus on this in WP:COUNTRIES. As such, there should be a good reason to move from one convention to another. If you have one, please provide it.
 * Two of your edits in the society section: "Article 17 of Indian Constitution..." and "Since 1950, India has..." are positive changes even if they feel slightly out of place. The information you are conveying is significant. The third edit: "The existence of a caste systems has..." is redundant because the society section does not say that caste is limited to Hindus. Regards. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 08:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "The GDP estimates of IMF and World Bank tend to differ." - no, not really when it comes to top 14 economies. Only in India's case they tend to differ. Look here. And I think The World bank data is the latest and was updated in 9 July 2012, if I am not mistaken. "The information you are conveying is significant." - nice, then I take it that according to you, inclusion is possible. "redundant because the society section does not say that caste is limited to Hindus." - come on it names, Dalits as "ex-untouchables", what do you make of that? Besides, it's not about Hinduism. It's about providing info about the societal segregation in India. And, of course, we can always modify/moderate the language of the sentence. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 09:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What you mean perhaps is that difference of GDP estimates in India's case are huge (all figures differ slightly because IMF and WB estimate the data independently). I don't think that World Bank data is more recent. GDP estimates for 2012 will only be available in 2013, all other available data are projections. I don't get this: Dalits as "ex-untouchables", what do you make of that. Why do you think listing religions in the section will explain societal segregation better? <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk»  09:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "difference of GDP estimates in India's case are huge" - unusually huge, yes. And not talking about 2012, but 2011 so july 2012 seems to make sense, doesn't it? "I don't get this" - you said, it doesn't name hinduism and I am telling you that yes, it is implicitly pointing towards Hindu caste system by naming only Dalits (i.e. "ex-untouchable") and not other segregated classes from other religious groups. Like I told you before, it is about Indian society (not Hinduism), hence the article should also mention the social stratifications that exist in Indian society due to other influences. cheers. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 09:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is a convention to only use IMF then lets not change what is present in the article. The other edition of Article 17 is good enough to add. I feel we need to include The existence of a caste systems has also been observed among other religions of the Indian subcontinent (including Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism) as it would be a good information about how the caste system works in India --sarvajna (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "If there is a convention to only use IMF then lets not change what is present in the article" - Please tell me: <ol><li>Where is the convention? <LI>how does it apply to India?</ol> <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 10:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What I wanted to say got lost in all the edit conflicts. Let me try again. If you mean that an estimate on July 2012 will be better than an earlier one, I agree. It looks like a decent reason to update the data. I still don't get the second part. How does labelling Dalits as "ex-untouchable" point towards Hindu caste system. Untouchability was pre–dominantly a Hindu practice, but it existed in other religions in India as well. Identifying Dalits as ex-untouchable doesn't imply anything. Maybe I am completely missing it, but I think the section is reasonably balanced. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 10:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am only saying if there is some convention else we can arrive at some concensus here, but I just checked the link of IMF that is present in the article and for 2011 even in IMF the GDP is 1.8 trillion not sure whether I am looking at the correct page or not this is where I checked. Are we having wrong/old data in the article? --sarvajna (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Shaded cells in IMF data are projections. We can't use them. There is some consensus here to use UN data for GDP estimates. Other than this I can't find anything. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 10:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"If you mean that an estimate on July 2012 will be better than an earlier one, I agree. It looks like a decent reason to update the data." - I totally agree.

"Untouchability was pre–dominantly a...but it existed in other religions in India as well." - Yes, and I am not talking about untouchability. "Identifying Dalits as ex-untouchable" - again, please understand that I am talking of social segregation of all kinds (i.e. from caste system to class system). Do you get me know? <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 10:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, but that still does not explain how appending a list of religions will add anything to the section. I am not very keen on opposing the addition, however I still think it's redundant. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 10:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "does not explain how appending a list of religions will add anything to the section" - don't append then, albeit clarification will be helpful I think. and BTW the referendum you linked to is dated 2006, many things have changed since then. I do not think it will be prudent to base our edits on that but I may be wrong. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 10:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, a discussion in 2006 will do us no good. Basically, I wanted to point out that there have been no discussions on choosing IMF over WB that are significant to us. Regarding the second part, a clarification along the lines of caste system is found among all religions in India... with a secondary reference, is what we should be looking for. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk»  10:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you here. It seems, you and I have reached concord. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 10:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just one minor addition, if you want to include religions in the section do it in a nondescript way. For instance, "Traditional Indian society is defined by a relatively strict social hierarchy. The Indian caste system embodies much of the social stratification and many of the social restrictions found in many religions (careful about weasel) of the Indian subcontinent." You might also like to inform RP, CMD and others. They might like to comment on this. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk»  10:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I already have informed them and I am waiting for their view too. (Meanwhile please comment on the proposal below.) <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 10:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Caste, the social inequality deeply embedded in Hinduism now for over two thousand years, is the burden of Hinduism alone. To be sure, superficial vestigial notions of caste are found in India's other religions, mostly as a result of formerly Hindu converts to those religions bringing over some of their caste prohibitions with them, but these vestigial distinctions have never been as elaborate, ideologically driven, or inhumane as the caste practices of Hinduism. If you are trying to insert this traditional upper-caste Hindu apology into this flagship article on India, let me bluntly suggest that you are wasting your time. I don't see any consensus ever appearing for it, simply because the sources are overwhelmingly agreed that Hindu India is the paradigmatic example of caste. Consensus on Wikipedia is not a vote, but dependent on what the predominance of sources say. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is not mentioned than the section would not be balanced, it is very true that Caste, the social inequality deeply embedded in Hinduism now for over two thousand years but even you agree that the caste system is now present in other religions in India (ofcourse Mrt3366 has provided sources as well). Now if you feel that we should not mention something because it is a traditional upper-caste Hindu apology  then I am sorry this is not how it should work here. Keep your view to yourself lets bring out facts.--sarvajna (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've created a subpage (of my user page, so please don't edit it), User:Fowler&fowler/Tertiary sources on Caste, which has some 30 tertiary sources, themselves summaries of the secondary sources, on the subject of caste. Hindu India is what is typically associated with caste, not Muslim India or Christian India.  That caste is superficially found in other religions of India is not notable enough to gain mention in this page, simply because it doesn't gain mention in the overwhelming majority of sources.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The textbook, summarizes the anthropological view: "A caste is a closed social class in a stratified society in which membership is determined by birth and fixed for life. The opposite of the principle that all humans are born equal, the caste system is based on the principle that humans neither are nor can be equal. Castes are strongly endogamous, and offspring are automatically members of their parents' caste. The classic ethnographic example of a caste system is the traditional Hindu caste system of India (also found in other parts of Asia, including Nepal and Bali). Perhaps the world's longest surviving social hierarchy, it encompasses a complex ranking of social groups on the basis of 'ritual purity'."  How much clearer a description, association (with Hinduism), and indictment do you want?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I will be gone for the rest of the day, but I don't see any easy consensus for this piece of garbage.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the addition of a mention of the existence of the caste system outside Hinduism as being particularly controversial, though the wording and emphasis perhaps needs some thought. Caste and religion are intertwined in India (caste, for example, being an important driver of religious conversion) and in certain religions there is active caste discrimination (Mazhabi Sikhs are one example). The pervasiveness of the caste system in India and the difficulty in eradicating it is interesting and, imo, worthy of inclusion and perhaps that's what the focus of the text should be. --regentspark (comment) 12:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the addition would be informative. What about this form: Traditional Indian society is defined by a relatively strict social hierarchy. The Indian caste system embodies much of the social stratification and many of the social restrictions found in the Indian subcontinent. Though the classic caste system is empirically associated with the Hindu society, it spilled over to most of the other religions of the subcontinent…..  AshLey  Msg 13:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't necessarily disagree with this last phrasing, but it is the degree and form of the spill over that is at stake.  Unfortunately the sources do not regard the spilled over caste system as important enough to emphasize.  I've just produced 30 of the best-known tertiary sources on caste.  Their lead paragraphs emphasize Hindu India.  How, then, in a summary-style article on India (not on Caste) are we making a case for this inclusion?  Consensus on Wikipedia is not a diplomatic compromise worked out between editors based on their personal views of a topic; it has to be essentially rooted in sources.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just stop your POV-pushing, nothing is spilled over to others by Hinduism.
 * "Though the classic caste system is empirically associated with the Hindu society, it spilled over to most of the other religions of the subcontinent….." - wow spilled over to most of the other religions? Should I bring in other Hindu sources? That's an anti-Hindu POV, fowler&fowler.(Informing you, not blaming you) "Caste, the social inequality deeply embedded in Hinduism now for over two thousand years, is the burden of Hinduism alone." - Hinduism alone? These anti-Hindu POVs are extremely offensive to Hindu community do you know that? Divisive even. Why only focus on western-indologists when it comes to Hinduism? Why not then state what actually the Hindu saints like Swamy Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Dayanand Saraswati, etc and modern Hindu activists like Subramanian Swamy have said about caste system? Don't forget that one might say that there are 73 sects of Islam alone. Every religion has segregation and stratification, misinformation about caste system while neglecting to mention other religious groups is not how we should work here. @sarvajna "Now if you feel that we should not mention something because it is a traditional upper-caste Hindu apology  then I am sorry this is not how it should work here." - yes, you are right. Fowler&Fowler is deliberately creating a problem here. Nobody is denying that India is grappling with societal stratifications, but why pick on Hinduism alone? <font face="Comic Sans MS"  color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 13:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler take this for example on page 253 it says In practice, since virtually all thoroughfares were built to accommadate some kind of sacred or ceremonial function, this meant that low-caste Christians were barred from just about every town and village street in Malabar. The caste system is not just present in Hinduism and I might slightly agree that the kind of caste system present in Chritians might have been superficially borrowed from Hindus but that is not the case with Muslims. Also superficially or not superficially you just cannot hide the fact that caste system is present in other religions. --sarvajna (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Offensive or not, Mrt3366, the sources regard caste as the defining social inequality embedded in Hinduism from time immemorial, long before there was any Islam or Christianity in India. I challenge you or anyone here to produce (on any forum on Wikipedia) such a predominance of tertiary sources on caste as I have done.
 * Ratnakar.kulkarni, Anyone can produce secondary sources in support of anything, but find me the widely recognized tertiary sources that emphasize these alternative views with such unanimity. (PS. If you think I haven't read Susan Bayly (and several times, at that) read the Kurmi article.)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sarvajna, Mrt, Fowler and others please don't waste time reinventing the wheel. A detailed discussion on this has already been done at Talk:Caste. All of F&f's arguments/sources were examined and counter arguments/sources were presented. I don't see anything new happening here. Let's consider RP's suggestion instead. We can't just list all the religions afflicted by caste in the article, there should be a point to it. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 13:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "I will be gone for the rest of the day, but I don't see any easy consensus for this piece of garbage." - mind your tone. I demand replies that are polite and civil. Calling somebody else's proposal to include verifiable information as "garbage", is downright rude. I could careless about what you think. I think you should step away from the article now. You have already done enough. "Ratnakar.kulkarni, Anyone can produce secondary sources" - then balance it. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 13:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"We can't just list all the religions afflicted by caste in the article, there should be a point to it." - I couldn't agree more. That's why I say you don't have to name any religion in particular. Just say that other creeds also have this problem, but don't blame it on Hinduism wholly. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mrt, you also have to click on the link that you have given, WP:CIVIL. You can't simply blame somebody for POV-pushing without sufficient grounds. Let me waste 1 more second: I think Bayly corroborates, at least clearly in the Christian case, the "spill over" (anti-Hindu:).  AshLey  Msg 13:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler what I understand from Verifiability/reliable sources is we need secondary sources let me quote I know you might have read this as well and honestly I did not know that you have read Susan Bayly you see I am not in a habit of tracking everything that you do ''Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources.


 * Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion''


 * I Can provide you more sources on caste system in other religions in India. No one is denying the fact of presence of caste system in Hindu India, we are just saying that Caste system is not just limited to Hindus in India. We need to mention this in the society section of the article. --sarvajna (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well said. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 14:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Caste isn't unique to India or Hinduism . Every argument you make on this (including sarvajna's last one) has been discussed in the link I provided in my last post, so let's not spend any more time on this. Back to what RP said: The pervasiveness of the caste system in India and the difficulty in eradicating it, this should definitely be the focus. But if we choose to write along these lines, we will need a different source. I don't think Bayly will be useful. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 14:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Every argument you make on this (including sarvajna's last one) has been discussed in the link I provided in my last post" - I know. What should we do then? I, for one, think we're needlessly wasting time quibbling about this thing, it's almost pre-decided settled. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 14:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Pre–decided... that had an eerie feel to it. Let's try to find sources which highlight the difficulties in eradicating caste in India, cutting across religious lines. I'll be able to continue this only tomorrow. What I am hoping for is that there is some sort of a consensus that this is the way forward. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 14:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @F&F You said, "let me bluntly suggest that you are wasting your time." - you have given me far too many suggestions now let me give you one in return, listen to what others are saying before being rude. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 14:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

CK and RP can you please elaborate on what you are suggesting? To be honest I did not understand what you said The pervasiveness of the caste system in India and the difficulty in eradicating it, this should definitely be the focus --sarvajna (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I second the concern raised by sarvajna. I know what CK wants, but I am unsure about RP's suggestions. It seemed too hazy. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 14:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't thought it through completely, so my explanation right now will be poor. Basically, after Most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and members of other lower-caste communities continue to live in segregation and often face persecution and discrimination we can include Mrts content on laws, positive discrimination etc. Then we can describe how discrimination continues to this day in all religions briefly (in a sentence or two) despite the laws. I'll check tomorrow to see how others have improved/modified this idea. Hopefully, RP will have elaborated on the idea by then. Regards. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 14:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure we can wait for RP's suggestions and ofcourse Fowler's comments --sarvajna (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell the article as it stands doesn't link modern caste discrimination just to hindus, but to Indian society as a whole. The insertion of a sentence specifying religions would actually bring more attention to each specific religion than is there now, from my reading. CMD (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not explicitly, you're right. But it does mention dalits as the primary victims of caste system. What does that imply? It's implicit behind the statement that Hinduism is to blame (like F&F so firmly believes). Also, we as editors are in no position to decide what to censor based on our apprehension about increased 'attention'. There are other groups that have in past faced or still today face the same discrimination. Why then mention one and not the other? Besides I do not think that adding a sentence about how segregation exists in other creeds of Indian society, will bring a tsunami of edit-wars <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt  <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 16:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All that implies is that dalits are the primary victims. It's hard to be more of a victim of social discrimination than to be completely untouchable. It is mentioned because it is a extremely prominent issue. A full list of every problem belongs on more detailed articles, and past ones probably shouldn't even be touched on in this article outside the history section. Wikipedia content isn't about what will or won't cause edit wars, but about information taken from reliable sources. CMD (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To be honest I am not an expert on economy, so I want to stay away from it. The caste system is limited to very few places, and untouchability is almost dead. However it is true that the SCs and the STs are still economically weaker. I think Mrt3366' suggestions are good, as currently the article seems to have a little POV on this topic. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 17:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct Knowledge, please don't promote falsehood here by suggesting that the POV-ridden article Caste&mdash;which starting from the days (2007) it was edited by banned Hindu nationalist editors such as user:Hkelkar, has pushed the POV that caste is not unique to Indian society, but is found the world over&mdash;has no issues. It is currently being promoted by another editor, who edit wars over it.  I tried to insert the sourced tertiary content, but simply didn't have the appetite to edit war.  Please see the article history.  Why don't you and the current author try to nominate it for a featured article, and then watch me (and others) take it apart?  In fact, I challenge you.  Why do you think it has the neutrality tag right at the very top?  I presented some 15 sources on that page, the main editor there responded by providing 8 sources, most of which were disingenuously quoted, and two of which were the 1921 and 1911 editions of Encyclopedia Americana and Britannica!!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the other views, either leave the wording as is with no reference to religion, or, if you are going to mention religion, then state what the preponderance of sources say about caste's clear, definitive, and unbroken link with Hinduism. After you have spent at least a paragraph discussing this, you may mention in no more than half a sentence the fact of the superficial spill over to other religions.  The spill over is that inconsequential on the scale of emphasis in writings on caste.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ranakar.kulkarni, Wikipedia relies on secondary sources for its details, but on tertiary sources for determining on how the details stack up to create balance and emphasis.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Lots of stuff here to read but .... ! Anyway, whatever we add to the article, it should be clear that India's caste system is essentially Hindu in nature and that these caste distinctions "spillover" into other religions. The wording needs to be carefully done because castes are not institutionalized in other religions and we don't want the reader to be left with the impression that castes are something other than Hindu in origin and essence. (I apologize but it is a holiday here and I have many guests at home so can't make a more specific suggestion then that.)--regentspark (comment) 19:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw this discussion linked on another page and came to take a look. As usual, Fowler&Fowler is unnecessarily brusque, but essentially correct. I wanted to correct one main error made above, wrt secondary and tertiary sources. While, as a general rule, Wikipedia prefers to use secondary sources in articles, we absolutely do look to tertiary sources when trying to determine an overall picture of a field, especially when we're trying to balance POV issues. If the overwhelming majority of tertiary sources say one thing, than that is a clear picture that the field as a whole (in this case, the study of Indian history/politics/society) supports that perspective. To pick and choose a few secondary sources to try to balance against that gives undue weight to that minority viewpoint. It is possible to make a small mention of other religions, as regenstpark points out, but it has to be done extremely carefully. Based on the sources F&F provide, it sounds like it is important that the end result no sound like "Caste comes from Hinduism, but exists in other religions in India, too". Instead, it needs to sound like "Caste in India is the result of Hindu religious teachings, existing in India for thousands of years, and deeply embedded in every aspect of society (at least until recently). As other religions came to India, some of them also came to be affected by the caste system." Obviously, not really written like that, but with that impression. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All we are saying is just mention the verifiable fact (I gave sources too) or, as you others may call it, "assertion" that there are "segregation" (not to be confused with the word "caste") in other creeds of Indian society also. To try and muzzle that voice with sophistry is not only needless but, to some extent, also hypocritical. <P>F&F indignantly and constantly labels anyone who so much as voices a favourable opinion of Hinduism or Hindus or Indian society as "Hindu nationalist"/"Biased". And if you can give me one reliable tertiary source that says that no other societal or religious group had social segregation/discrimination except for Hinduism, then I would believe that you and F&F have a point. Otherwise it's just plain sophistication to suppress the truth and nothing more.


 * Caste is neither unique to Hindu religion nor to India; caste systems have been observed in other parts of the world, for example, in the Muslim community of Yemen, Christian colonies of Spain, and the Buddhist community of Japan.


 * Besides why mention the word "caste", why not mention the word "stratification" if you're not talking about Hinduism only? For example, this article about Christian caste in Indian society is from Encyclopædia Britannica. Tertiary source? Also read wikipedia's Caste system among South Asian Muslims don't you think these are worth mentioning? Will it be fair to those who faced discrimination in one form or the other, but not even mentioned in one sentence? <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 06:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @F&F- you say, "the preponderance of sources say about caste's clear, definitive, and unbroken link with Hinduism." - what do you mean by clear, definitive, and unbroken link? The 'untouchability' in India is illegal and nearly dead. Indian government (composed of Hindus predominantly) is grappling with this casteism. Prominent hindu sages and leaders have constantly & fervidly spoken against the social discrimination and tried to explain how caste system is not actually pre-decided based on birth rather occupation. But you see none of that? You don't want to listen to the leaders, you won't let that voice to be heard. Again as sarvajna said above, “No one is denying the fact of presence of caste system in Hindu India, we are just saying that Caste system is not just limited to Hindus in India.” <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 08:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * On tertiary sources There isn't a unanimity among tertiary sources on this issue (see this). Once we acknowledge the conflict among tertiary sources, we shouldn't be tempted to discuss them any further (interpretations, age, space given to the topic, country of origin, field it specializes in etc.). As WP:RS suggests Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Actually, we don't need to use tertiary sources at all to evaluate what weight each viewpoint should have in an article. By examining quantity (no. of reliable secondary sources) and quality (no. of times cited, h-index etc.) of secondary sources we can accurately determine the same.


 * On sweeping statements Sweeping statements linking caste to India/Hinduism alone can be easily refuted with just one example. I'll let that example be caste in Islamic Senegal (there are plenty of others). Statements that suggest that conversion from Hinduism is responsible for caste among other Indian religions are definitely more agreeable. It explains Mazhabi Sikhs, caste among Goan Christians etc. However, caste in Ashraf-Ajlaf (arab–non arab descent) and STCs might be harder to explain using this logic. This probably requires further discussion.


 * @Fowler, the other editor on Talk:Caste was quite patient with you as you refused to answer their questions, used dictionaries as best sources, attacked them personally and in absence of consensus and despite repeated suggestions to take it to DRN went on to edit the page; but simply didn't have the appetite to edit war.. doesn't look like it.


 * @Mrt, this is just the stage where you've made the proposal and editors are already divided into no change required, change with Hindu focus and change with equal focus to all religions. Getting a consensus on sources, final wording will be an uphill climb from here. All this seems as bit wasteful for an addition of one or two lines to the section. If I were you I would take whatever consensus I got from here, close the discussion and flee. :) <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 08:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * At least say that "Indian government has declared untouchability as illegal, and is trying to eradicate the caste system that pervades all strata of Indian society". Although that might need some additional sources, this should be acceptable, right? <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 08:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought there was consensus on adding that already. That is a significant piece of information that is missing from the article. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 08:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Encyclopædia Britannica. says


 * Is it not a tertiary source? Not saying we should include all that but just illustrating what the present scenario is. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 08:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One more clarification for Mrt on dalit; the term is defined in the linked article as "Dalit is a designation for a group of people traditionally regarded as untouchable.[4] Dalits are a mixed population, consisting of numerouscastes from all over South Asia; they speak a variety of languages and practice a multitude of religions. ". Dalit is not synonymous to SC/ST and not always a Hindu; so a mention on the discrimination against dalits is not an "anti-Hindu" POV as Mrt tries to establish here.  AshLey  Msg 08:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, Dalit encompasses a wider base than Hindu/Buddhist communities. That shouldn't be the only reason to balance the article. Of course, this has no bearing on the constitution related content Mrt is adding. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 09:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Mrt asked me back. I have no opinion on how to mention the untouchability point, as I don't know enough to give an informed opinion. But the point about other groups and other religions runs up into WP:UNDUE. Let me take a hypothetical example: if 90% of a countries citizens were all Buddhists, and 10% were Christians, we would certainly mention that in the country's article. But we wouldn't include detailed information about the rites, practices or other aspects of Christians in that country--to do so would violate WP:UNDUE; we'd probably put it into some sort of Christianity in Country X article. Remember, this page's job is supposed to give a broad view of India. There are a limited number of words and ideas that may reasonably be included. We need to include the ones that best represent what a broad look at reliable sources would state, giving due weight to minority opinions. Thus, while I said that regentspark's suggestion was possibly, I was simply cautioning it to say that we need to be very clear that the majority of reliable sources (especially the one's whose job it is to look at the broad view) is that this is a social structure that originates out of Hinduism, not just a social structure that happens to exist in a country that happens to have a Hindu majority. Do you see the difference? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In addition to what said, I was previously asked "how appending a list of religions will add anything to the section" - I replied "don't append then, albeit clarification will be helpful I think". So I am not trying to establish anything. But you are not quoting the article correctly. It also describes dalits as "Panchamas ("fifth varna"), and Asprushya ("untouchables")", hence the word dalit sends a wrong message despite the neutral clarification given in the other article. That was what I was trying to say. <font face="Comic Sans MS"  color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 09:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with the article on Dalits you should take it up at Talk:Dalit. This might not be the right venue for such a discussion. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 09:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @ We need to include the ones that best represent what a broad look at reliable sources would state, giving due weight to minority opinions. - I concur. Nobody is, I think, saying that we should explicitly mention any religion or give undue weight to anything. Give due weight to the fact, 1> that scenarios have changed drastically over the past few decades and 2> caste is linked to but not limited to Hinduism or India.<P>@ - I don't a problem with the article on Dalits. I have problem with the context where the dalit is mentioned in this article and the message it sends because of that. I didn't mention the purported definition of the word "Dalit", did I? did. <font face="Comic Sans MS"  color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 09:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @ I would not agree with your logic about your hypothetical example If there are 90% Buddhists and 10 % Christians it is very much assumed that Christians in that hypothetical country almost follow the same traditions as the Christians in other countries, to clarify that the Christians in this hypothetical country follow some other traditions you need a separate article which says Christians of Country XYZ so when you say that Indian Society has something called caste an European/non Indian would assume that this is just about Hindus. I hope you got my point, I know it can be clearer --sarvajna (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct Knowledge: There is complete consensus in the tertiary sources on the centrality of Hindu India to the subject of caste. There are three Wikipedia articles, Caste, Caste system in India, and Culture of India in which original research, synthesis, and plain disingenuousness have been combined in a pseudo-scholarly style to majorly distort the perspective. If the POV from those articles is added to this Featured Article, I will certainly take a stand; however, I don't have the time to go after the content of those obscure (and obscurantist) pages themselves, in which editors hide behind the skirts of obfuscation in long and long-winded posts.  You are welcome, Correct Knowledge, to nominate those articles for Featured Article status, then, with more eyes watching, I will be happy to take those articles apart.  In fact, as I already have, I am again openly challenging you to nominate any of those articles to WP:FAC.  If you are not willing to do that, then please hold your peace.   As for any consensus here, plainly there will have to be a lot more clear explication of the centrality of Hinduism to the topic of caste before other religions can be mentioned.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler, Caste system and its origin is already mentioned in the article in the Ancient India section, it is about caste system in Hindu India. The society section again speaks about Caste system and its problem without mentioning about Castes in other religion.--sarvajna (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now edited the lead sentence in Caste and cited it to a single tertiary reference, the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. You all can now watch in real time how obfuscation is carried out.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I have also now added 30 tertiary sources to the talk page.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Caste and India
Good! Waste your time and energy there, not here. Don't you understand nobody is denying that caste is linked to India and Hinduism? But when you say "only India or Hinduism has casteism" that is what the problem stems from. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 11:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One of your tertiary sources says (International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2008), "Nearly all societies have had some form of social stratification, whether ascriptive or achieved, based on race, class, religion, ethnicity, language, education, or occupation." Then it goes on to say "The Hindu ascriptive caste system in India is perhaps the most complex and rigid." We have already accepted that. What's wrong with you? <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 11:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler I will comment on your sources there, most of your sources say that caste is not just limited to India and Hindus. Detailed comment on the caste talk page. --sarvajna (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't distort what I have said, Ratnakar.kulkarni. I have never said that caste is not found outside India or outside Hinduism, only that the tertiary sources are agreed that Hindu India is the classic, paradigmatic, and most frequently cited ethnographic example.  As such, it should receive proportionate treatment in any exposition of caste.  If on average, they devote twelve paragraphs to Hindu India, and only three to other examples, we need to maintain similar balance.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler these are few of your own statements
 * Caste, the social inequality deeply embedded in Hinduism now for over two thousand years, is the burden of Hinduism alone
 * Hindu India is what is typically associated with caste, not Muslim India or Christian India. That caste is superficially found in other religions of India is not notable enough to gain mention in this page, simply because it doesn't gain mention in the overwhelming majority of sources
 * yes we need not elaborate anything but can't we mention the existence? Also only 10 of your sources say that it is specific to Hinduism and rest 21 either say that there is a debate among scholars or that there are caste like systems in other part of the world. If you agree that caste is not just present in Hindus then why are you opposing the inclusion of just small statement which says that caste like system is not just prevalent among Hindu Majority ? --sarvajna (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Distorting again, Ratnakar.kulkarni. They all discuss Hindu India (and 22 out of 30 mention Hindu India in the portions I have quoted.  (For copyright reasons have usually only provided the first few sentences in the list.)  Look at the links.  I am talking about proportionate representation.  As I've already stated, if you write a small paragraph on caste in Hinduism, you can then add one sentence about caste in the non-Hindu religions on India.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The following claims are neither supported by respected published sources nor belong in wikipedia. These claims, made above, are false:
 * "[..on caste..] the fact of the superficial spill over to other religions. The spill over is that inconsequential on the scale of emphasis in writings on caste."
 * "There is complete consensus in the tertiary sources on the centrality of Hindu India to the subject of caste."
 * While there are quite a few authors and less followed/less cited scholars who claim caste is central / unique / etc. to Hindoos or India, and poorly written zillion topics-including tertiary textbooks/sources out there who make such claims, the more respected position - including by those referred to as founders/outstanding scholars of various branches of sociology - is that caste is more complex and diverse socio-cultural phenomena seen in many parts of the world. If anything, the subject, nature and details of caste is frequently disputed.
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Best not to talk in generalities ApostlevonColorado. Dated articles by Gerald Berreman whose work from the 1960s is now mostly ignored can't be the basis of an article.  Tertiary sources are important, especially when they are largely agreed.  They, and not our own proclivities, determine the emphasis within an article.  Citation indices don't mean as much, since many authors can be cited in opposition. I have now opened an RfC on the Talk:Caste page.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler let's not stretch this discussion to the point of ridiculousness, repeating your allegations ad nauseam and thereby restarting the discussion all over again. You have said and done enough. We appreciate that. Every-body is entitled to his or her opinion and I respect that. You, like many of us, expressed your views, nevertheless more brusquely than I expected or thought was needed. I (along with others) don't agree with many lofty claims you make (same goes for me too). But the fact of the matter is your much touted tertiary sources don't seem to contradict our stance, rather many corroborate what we have been saying all along, that yes Caste-system was and is a problem in Hinduism/Indian society but it's present outside of Hinduism or India also. Drop it now. You're wasting your and others' time and more importantly obstructing the improvement of a Wikipedia article. My proposal is, I think, very fair and reasonable. If you out of hand assume that it's "upper class hindu propaganda" or "hindu nationalistic garbage" or just "biased" while your sources actually confirm my viewpoint then it's your problem. The claim that "there is complete consensus in the tertiary sources on the centrality of Hindu India" is your synthesis. Complete consensus is a very strong claim and in this case untrue since you're. Wikipedia is not about Winning. Your brusque behaviour reeks of battleground mentality. Now just drop it. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 15:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler, I have replied on the caste article. Please note if we follow your suggestion this page would become "Cast System In India" rather than India article. Just like I said above we already have the origin or caste system in Ancient India section and in the society section we just propose to add a small line saying that caste system is not just among Hindus. Hope you understand --sarvajna (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal
I thought that we can add domething like this in the society section The caste system in Indian which is not just prevalent among Hindu Majority embodies much of the social stratification and many of the social restrictions found in the Indian subcontinent......Most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and members of other lower-caste communities continue to live in segregation and often face persecution and discrimination.Since 1950, India has enacted and implemented many laws and social initiatives to protect and improve the socio-economic conditions of its Dalit population and Article 17 of Indian Constitution declared any practice of untouchability as illegal.... --sarvajna (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal. Content on laws and constitutional provisions that protect Dalits is vital information missing from this article. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 13:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal and agree with nominator as well as CK. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 15:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no dice. Proportionate representation requires a much longer discussion of caste in Hinduism before other religions can be mentioned.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I missed the not just prevalent among Hindu Majority part. That is still under discussion, but rest of the proposal looks fine. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 15:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 2
Since the above proposal is obviously not going to cut it, I propose the following (text as before, additions bolded, and assuming reliable sources can be found for the additional assertions): ''Traditional Indian society is defined by a relatively strict social hierarchy. The Indian caste system, institutionalized within Hinduism, embodies much of the social stratification and many of the social restrictions found in the Indian subcontinent. Social classes are defined by thousands of endogamous hereditary groups, often termed as jātis, or "castes".[278] Most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and members of other lower-caste communities continue to live in segregation and often face persecution and discrimination,[279][280] '''often even amongst converts from Hinduism to Islam, Christianity or Sikhism. Since 1950, India has enacted and implemented many laws and social initiatives to protect and improve the socio-economic conditions of its Dalit population and Article 17 of Indian Constitution declares that any practice of untouchability as illegal.'--regentspark (comment) 15:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ...often even amongst converts from Hinduism to Islam, Christianity or Sikhism is a tall claim. It will be hard to prove that every non-Hindu who is afflicted by/believes in the caste system is a Hindu convert. I have pointed out earlier that the Islamic system of Ashraf-Ajlaf (arab–non arab descent) and STC casteism does result from conversion alone, there could however be Hindu influence on them. Basically, I don't like the convert from Hinduism phrase, it will not work for many communities in the subcontinent. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 15:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not discussing about persecution of converts by the fellow believers.--sarvajna (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are making it only worse by adding The Indian caste system, institutionalized within Hinduism . This is what we have been discussing and have also given sources that caste system exists outside Hinduism as well --sarvajna (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The caste system exists outside Hinduism (in India) only because it exists within Hinduism. It's not as if there is an institutionalized caste system within Christianity or Islam. The only way we can mention other religions is if we clearly state that India's caste system is essentially Hindu in nature. The other alternative is to keep the text as is and add only the additional line about the GOI that starts with "Since 1950". --regentspark (comment) 16:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Caste system among religions in India shows Hindu influence. Religions in other countries have evolved caste on their own (Islamic Senegal for instance). Even among Indians, lot of systems cannot be broken down into four-fold varna or mani-fold jatis. I like the other alternative of only including the "Since 1950..." line better. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 16:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Support RegentsPark's proposal 2. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I oppose because:<OL><LI>institutionalized within Hinduism - is going to stir up the issue even more.<LI>often even amongst converts from Hinduism to Islam, Christianity or Sikhism that doesn't make sense. Like CK claims, many cultures have developed social segregation on their own. </ol>
 * AFAIK, caste is a form of 'social segregation' and should be treated and talked about in such terms. The very word "caste" has been of a non-Indian origin (meaning "segregation"), yet has been imputed to Indian hindu culture umpteenth number of times in this discussion, why so? Why are people so eager to ascribe 'castus' - (latin word meaning segregation) to Hinduism as well as Hindu culture alone? Even fowler's sources refute this hypothesis. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 16:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with both proposals is the way in which connection between caste and Hinduism is being interpreted. I don't think there is going to be any consensus on the wording and then the sources anytime soon. Let's just drop it. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 17:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On the Indian subcontinent, the caste system is found only among non-Hindus who live in close cohabitation with Hindus. Louis Dumont has written about it in his magnum opus.  Caste, for example, is not found among the Pathans (who don't live among Hindus).  See   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Pathans are themselves part of the Ashrafs. You might of course argue that caste system among South Asian muslims exists because of Hindu influence on them and it would be a justified point. However, Pathans are by no means Hindu converts as the proposal suggests. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 17:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler won't let us reach a consensus, as it seems. He is convinced that it's only hindus who started social segregation and also taught every other group wherever segregations exist (from japan to europe, from muslims to christians), yet I am advised not to call him a classic example of anti-Hindu POV-pusher. wow! <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 17:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Social segregation is not the same thing as the caste system which refers specifically to the hierarchy of castes developed within the practice of Hinduism.--regentspark (comment) 17:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * CorrectKnowledge: Obviously, he is not talking about Muslims who live in India and who call themselves Pathans (ie of Pathan ancestory and often with last name Khan), but the Pathans of Swat who live in Northwest Pakistan and who have, according to Dumont, a system of patronage and clientele with certain cast-like features, but not a caste system (with notions of hierarchy and ritual purity, etc). This also supports RegentsPark's statement above.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Social segregation is not the same thing as the caste system which refers specifically to the hierarchy of castes developed within the practice of Hinduism" - the very words caste originated from a latin word 'castus' meaning nothing but segregation, and you are attempting to make me believe that segregation is not same caste system? Of course it is. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 07:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Of citations 279 and 280, CBC News is a poorly written summary of a report submitted to the United Nations by one activist group. Citation 280 is Stanley Wolpert's New History of India. Neither supports the current language on caste in this article or parts of suggested two proposal drafts. The cited Wolpert's page 126 is part of a chapter on Mughal times (1556-1605). The chapters covering contemporary times start in chapter 23, page 351. It would be inappropriate to take historical description of Wolpert and transpose it into a language that implies it to be the current status. Either better WP:RS support should be provided, or the summary rewritten to more closely reflect what the source actually says.

Similarly the UN report by one activist group should not be taken in isolation. United Nations has received many reports on caste system in India, some authored by Indians and some by non-Indians; the cited CBC News article referred to just one, and is therefore incomplete. See UN website mentioned by CBC News for the actual review of various primary source reports submitted to the United Nations for India and many other nations (e.g. see United Nations 2007 Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination)

Per WP:NPOV, the relevant section of this article, and draft proposals to revise it, would be better if it did not take sides, rather explain all sides fairly. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously, RegentsPark has not mentioned anything about references for proposal2, but many exist. By the way, 279 is the signed article on "Caste" in Britannica written by the sociologist T. N. Madan.  280 should be removed; thanks for pointing that out.  As for Wolpert, also cited for the same sentence, the wrong book by him has been cited.  It should be  That book is more appropriate for the Society and Culture section.  Whether page 126 is the correct page, I can't tell (the discussion on caste is somewhere between 119 and 126).  In a much trafficked article such as this, the second-most viewed country article on Wikipedia, things are continuously being tampered with by all sorts of drive bys.  Thanks for pointing out the errors.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If text is getting to the point where it cites specific parts of the constitution of specific laws in a very high level summary style article like this, then that is a good indication it is probably undue, and better used in a more specific article. CMD (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you, CMD. The culture section is the weakest section of the article, one in which everyone and their brother have thrown in their two cents going back to 2007.  Unfortunately, its parent article, the snow-job Culture of India, has major original research and neutrality issues.  Until not too long ago it was claiming in its lead that Indian culture goes back to 8000 BCE and citing it to an book by a Hare Krishna businessman.  The problem with a topic like culture is that it combines history, sociology, arts and architecture, etc in varying amounts.  The experts in these subfields, such as Romila Thapar or Andre Beteille or A. K. Ramanujan don't write simplistic accounts for consumption by the average layman.  It is consequently left to aging non-experts such as Amartya Sen, to hold forth loquaciously on culture and be regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia.  Both this section and its parent article need to be majorly rewritten.  But who has the time (and the ability to rigorously summarize the real experts)?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In my note above, I was referring to [279][280] in proposal 2, which for clarity I quote: "...The Indian caste system, institutionalized within Hinduism, embodies much of the social stratification and many of the social restrictions found in the Indian subcontinent. Social classes are defined by thousands of endogamous hereditary groups, often termed as jātis, or "castes".[278] Most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and members of other lower-caste communities continue to live in segregation and often face persecution and discrimination,[279][280]..."
 * I checked the alternate Wolpert book. I cannot find support for "Most Dalits and members of other lower-caste communities continue to live in segregation and often face persecution and discrimination" between pages 116 through 132 in this either. Also note that this alternate Wolpert book was written before and published in 1991, re-printed in 1999 with no change other than a new preface. Last 20 years have seen significant economic growth, expansion of schooling and changes in India's AA/EO efforts. If Wolpert citation is used to support any sentence, then for balance, the sentence should clarify "In a 1991 publication Wolpert observes...".
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are quibbling about the 1999 reprint of a 1991 edition being outdated. Coming from an editor who cites a 130 year-old article from Popular Science&mdash;which uses the word cretin (for congenitally hypothyroid)&mdash;in the spurious subsection "Caste in France," in the article Caste, sounds like ironic joke.  ApostlevonColorado, RegentsPark likely included the references without much thought, maybe even as an accidental cut and paste, he even says, "assuming reliable sources can be found for the additional assertions."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TPG, I invite you to avoid using this page as a forum, assume good faith and welcome suggestions that can improve this article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. As my proposal says, I only added the bolded bit and would only accept their inclusion if reliable sources can support them. --regentspark (comment) 01:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And here is a source that supports RegentsPark's sentence "Most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and members of other lower-caste communities continue to live in segregation and often face persecution and discrimination" , Quote: "Although India's national constitution of 1950 sought to officially abolish the caste system, and its faith-based discriminatory practices against Dalit untouchables, the caste system remains deeply entrenched in Hindu culture and is still widespread, especially in rural India. In what has been called India's "hidden apartheid," entire villages in many Indian states remain completely segregated by caste. Representing about 15 percent of India's population nearly 170 million people--the widely scattered Dalits endure near complete social isolation, humiliation, and discrimination based exclusively on their birth status." Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  01:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Most and often are a weasels that the source does not support. If the source says ..entire villages in many Indian states remain completely segregated by caste, that is how the sentence should be worded. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 04:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * RegentsPark - you may want to consider whether Haviland's book on Anthropology is a qualified and reliable source for economic data and on status of social civil/human rights in any country including India? In my studies, I find Haviland is one of the better textbooks on anthropology, but not a reliable source in other respects. For example, the allegations of 'hidden apartheid' and caste is racism in India is controversial and has been criticized by many including that Andre Beteille, someone Fowler&fowler often refers to. Similarly claims of 'near complete social isolation, humiliation, etc.' must be cross checked to be sure if is broadly accepted by scholars/economists/human right survey groups. It would be inappropriate to write a summary that unfairly praises or bashes India. Here are four sources that may give you additional info in drafting a fair and balanced summary sentence: 1. One of the social activist group tracking status of Dalits 2. A review article covering the issues and progress of Dalits in India 3. Economic reforms in India and its effect on its society 4. Annual surveys and reports resource on Dalits in India
 * These may be enough to start with. The United Nations Human Right Commission and social entrepreneurs/volunteers tracks these things and publish their own reports. FWIW, from my background research about 8 months ago, that Haviland summary on current status of Dalits is not widely accepted. The reports present a more complicated situation than that Haviland's summary above.
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that the entire content of Haviland be incorporated into the text; only that Haviland (which is used a number of time in the article Caste starting in the second sentence) can be used as a citation to support the statement in RegentsPark's proposal, which says nothing about "hidden apartheid."  Your references are unreliable and too specialized. A balanced summary for such an article is created by using a well-recognized tertiary source, not by trying to balance (on one's own) four separate articles: one of a social activist group, another from a conservative American institute, and two from departments within the Government of India.  That is a perfect recipe for synthesis.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS The last sentence in RegentsPark's proposal will need to be balanced with another about how successful these new laws and social initiatives have been. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The institutionalization of caste is not just among Muslims in India who live among Hindus but also among the muslims of Swat in pakistan Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon and North-West Pakistan Fredrik Barth says on Page number 113 that ..the people of Swat, as Sunni Moslema, fall far outside the Hindu fold, their system of social stratification may meaningfully be compared to that of Hindu caste system. Fowler, please note even as per your sources caste is not just present in India.It would be total distortion to say that caste system is institutionalized thing only among Hindus.--sarvajna (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please also see Louis Dumont's response to Barth's work on the Pathans of Swat that I've cited and linked above.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Problems with proposal 1: It does not proportionately represent Hindu influence on caste system in South Asia.
 * Problems with proposal 2: a)Every caste/community in India has not been converted from Hinduism. b)Non-Hindu, Non-Indian institutionalized systems of caste are also seen in the subcontinent.
 * Even assuming for a moment, that we change proposal 1 to proportionately represent various religions or we modify proposal 2 according to Dumont's theory (change it to Hindu influence etc.), the resulting content would still not serve our purpose. I assume that there is a consensus to include content on constitutional protection to Dalits. So what we are really looking for is something to connect constitutional protection to Dalits and their situation in modern India. Basically, any proposal should suggest a decent connector:
 * <Constitutional provisions> — — [Connector (Why have the laws not worked well enough)] — — <Situation of Dalits in Modern India>.
 * The connector cannot be Caste prevails in all Indian religions or There is Hindu influence on every religion. It has to be something which highlights the failure of state policy, government etc. Besides, any historical fact might look out of place in a section on society. One example of such a proposal could be:
 * <Constitutional provisions>— —[State policy has not touched more than half of Dalits] or [Economic liberalization did not affect Dalits]— —<Situation of Dalits in Modern India>. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 10:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think, this is a better (if overlong) explanation of what I suggested in my last PS upstairs. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  10:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 3
Seeing as how the above two proposals have all gone to unmanageable stages. I propose a new one. Basically keep it as it is but append Indian government's legislation against untouchability.

''Traditional Indian society is defined by a relatively strict social hierarchy. The Indian caste system embodies much of the social stratification and many of the social restrictions found in the Indian subcontinent. Social classes are defined by thousands of endogamous hereditary groups, often termed as jātis, or "castes".[280] Most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and members of other lower-caste communities continue to live in segregation and often face persecution and discrimination even though since 1950, India has declared the practice of untouchability illegal, and implemented many laws and social initiatives to protect and improve the socio-economic conditions of its Dalit population.'' -
 * Object A single sentence addition about the supposed abolition of untouchability needs to be balanced with one about how unsuccessful it has been. We need a sentence on the institutionalization of the caste system within Hinduism.  You are beginning to sound disruptive, so determined you seem to be to have your way.  We aren't done discussing RegentsPark's proposal and you already have a proposal 1.  Too many proposals confuse respondents and reduce response.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "A single sentence addition about the supposed abolition of untouchability needs to be balanced with one about how unsuccessful it has been." - it has not been unsuccessful at all. Besides, no body has made the claim that it has been fully successful so what do you want to balance in the first place? it already says that "lower-caste communities continue to live in segregation and often face persecution and discrimination". What's your problem? <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 10:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with this. The success or failure of government action is a complicated business that cannot be discussed in a summary article and adding a sentence about legislation and initiatives is not undue. --regentspark (comment) 12:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to link the last two sentences with "though"; hope that would clear the concern of Flower too. AshLey  Msg 12:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I like your suggestion very much and changed my proposal accordingly. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 12:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I liked the original formulation better. The "even though" part implies that the policies of the government have failed and we'll need to see a categorical reference for that. The fact that discrimination continues is already included in the previous sentence. But, I'd go with this if that's what it takes. (I've added a missing article to the sentence). --regentspark (comment) 13:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, we need have to be cautious of WP:SYN. However, if we can find any reliable source to support the "even though" version, it will be a way out from this labyrinth.  AshLey  Msg 13:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to give it some more thought and time, then make the edits. You're free to help. Ask Fowler he might have some sources that supports the phrase "even though". <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 13:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess using though, instead of effectiveness of state policy, to connect the two sentences is a better idea. :) <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 13:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of this adding of content by dribbles here and there. Personally, I'm still leaning towards not changing anything.  However, in the interests of getting this monkey off our backs, I could go along with it.  This is what CorrectKnowledge and I were talking about at the end of the last section.  Saying that the laws were abolished without saying how successful (or unsuccessful) they were, would not be encyclopedic.  I think Haviland (quoted in the last section above) provides good reference for this statement.  Now for the grammar and stylistic issues.  The language as it stands is clunky.  "implemented many laws and social initiatives" is vague; and we certainly can't say "protect the socio-economic conditions of its Dalits" since those conditions were abysmal.    How about: "Although India declared untouchability illegal in 1950 and has since enacted other anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives, most Dalits ('ex–Untouchables') and other low castes live in segregation and also face persecution and discrimination."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am fine with it. This looks sensible and neutral. I am assuming you can back your claims (in fact, I bank on you) with good tertiary sources. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 14:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC) - Gave it a thought after User:ApostleVonColorado's latest comment below and found that he is right. If my proposal is not balanced it will leave the reader with the impression that Dalits and low caste are in as bad a shape now as they were in 1950. 16:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler's proposal looks alright. Haviland is more than enough, we don't require more tertiary references. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 14:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good, my only regret is that we spent a lot of time discussing something and we could not arrive at a consesus.--sarvajna (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry wikipedia has no deadline. But I second your regret. There was way too much obfuscation, rudeness and digression. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 15:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * RegentsPark - Proposal 3 is starting to look better. The success or failure of government action is a complicated business that is best not discussed in a summary article. I agree that adding a sentence about legislation and initiatives is not undue. The various drafts above have an issue - they leave the reader with the impression that Dalits and low caste are as bad a shape now as they were in 1950. This is not supported by majority of publications and scholars. India is a poor country - about 94%+ of its population lives on less than $5 per day, and about 16% of its population are Dalits. Per independent World Bank / UN surveys, and WSJ/FT etc reports, all sections of its society have progressed on absolute and relative basis, particularly in last 20 years. Its census data for 2001 and 2011 count the Dalits as SC and it counts ST too. The census data does not suggest segregation in India, as the term segregation is understood widely. Take the WB/UN HDI reports over time, which are widely accepted by scholars who focus on human development and human/civil rights status - and it is clear India has made impressive progress and has a long way to go. FWIW, rely on a source other than Haviland for this; Haviland's 2010 13th edition text book has been re-printing the same summary since its early edition, and is not a good source on this aspect of India. Haviland summary is neither current nor widely accepted majority view of current status of Dalits and various castes in India.
 * RegentsPark - Proposal 3 is starting to look better. The success or failure of government action is a complicated business that is best not discussed in a summary article. I agree that adding a sentence about legislation and initiatives is not undue. The various drafts above have an issue - they leave the reader with the impression that Dalits and low caste are as bad a shape now as they were in 1950. This is not supported by majority of publications and scholars. India is a poor country - about 94%+ of its population lives on less than $5 per day, and about 16% of its population are Dalits. Per independent World Bank / UN surveys, and WSJ/FT etc reports, all sections of its society have progressed on absolute and relative basis, particularly in last 20 years. Its census data for 2001 and 2011 count the Dalits as SC and it counts ST too. The census data does not suggest segregation in India, as the term segregation is understood widely. Take the WB/UN HDI reports over time, which are widely accepted by scholars who focus on human development and human/civil rights status - and it is clear India has made impressive progress and has a long way to go. FWIW, rely on a source other than Haviland for this; Haviland's 2010 13th edition text book has been re-printing the same summary since its early edition, and is not a good source on this aspect of India. Haviland summary is neither current nor widely accepted majority view of current status of Dalits and various castes in India.


 * For a fair and balanced version, please consider if notable majority and non-fringe minority sides on 'current status of Dalits' have been included. A more neutral draft may be along the lines: While some reports suggest Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and other low castes have made economic and social progress over time, other reports suggest they live in segregation and also face persecution and discrimination.
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk)
 * You're right and I would like you to back your claims with reliable sources and let's get this over with. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 16:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence being considered goes into the "Society" section, not economics. It is about social exclusion, about persecution and discrimination, not about economic progress.  There is plenty of data that supports the view that these social variables have changed very slowly, especially in rural India.  (And that is one qualification I would like to add to the proposed sentence, to insert "especially in rural India," to the sentence.)  So, it would read: "Although India declared untouchability illegal in 1947 and has since enacted other anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives, most Dalits ('ex–Untouchables') and other low castes, especially in rural areas, live in segregation and also face persecution and discrimination."  If you don't like Haviland, I'm sure I can find other sources.  Btw, I forgot to mention earlier, untouchability was abolished before India's independence on 30 April 1947, by the constituent assembly of India.  (They obviously would not have waited until 1950.)  It was reported worldwide, even in Australian newspapers.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And, as I suspected, it didn't take that long to find a reference. Quote: "The widespread practice of untouchability continues to deprive individuals and communities access to resources, educational opportunities, em-ployment, and other avenues of advancement. Many caste Hindus still do not allow members of Dalit communities to enter their homes, particularly the kitchen, and will not permit their children to marry into these communities. In most rural areas separate sources of drinking water are maintained, away from those used by caste Hindus, and Dalits are expected to reside in separate colonies at some distance from caste Hindu settlements. In many parts of South India, even today, teashops keep separate sets of cups to be used only by Dalits. The government of independent India abolished untouchability and caste-based discrimination in 1947, declaring them cognizable offenses (for which offenders could be arrested without a court warrant), and instituted an affirmative action program for federal and state employment. Nonetheless, practices of exclusion manifest themselves today more violently than ever before. Combining economic and social discrimination, untouchability has survived the constitutional changes made immediately after independence."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS Not just discrimination, but actual violence against them as increased. Since this is the culture section, here is another reference, a hot off the press book on Indian culture:  Quote: "In the case of Dalits, constitutional law in India does prohibit discrimination on caste grounds and has explicit provisions not just to promote low-caste mobility, but also to protect Dalit life and security. But as any number of studies show, atrocities against Dalits have continued to grow in proportion with India's accelerated growth under its liberalization policy and within a dramatically globalized economic order."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a complete waste of time to have ApostlevonColorado, gather up more obscure secondary sources of the type he has cited above, and then for all of us, in a massive exercise in original research, to attempt to summarize the studies in a vague (and false) "One the one hand, and on the other hand," statement. That is a technique that has been historically employed on Wikipedia by India apologists to skirt around the bitter truth.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Folwer&fowler here, we can't mix this section up with economic data on Dalits. Yes Dalits, particularly in Uttar Pradesh (as an article AVC referred to earlier suggests), have improved economically over the last six decades, specially after the economic liberalization. But if we add that data in the society section, the article will appear defensive and awkward. However, I have a problem with the wording of the proposal as it stands now. Adding especially in rural areas implies that Dalits are facing segregation and persecution in urban areas as well even if to a lesser extent. Can we just go with most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and other low castes in rural areas...? <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 16:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right. So it would now read: "Although India declared untouchability illegal in 1947 and has since enacted other anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives, most Dalits ('ex–Untouchables') and other low castes in rural areas live in segregation and also face persecution and discrimination." Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Corrected. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support this proposal. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 17:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just make the bloody change. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 17:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler&fowler - please stop this 'That is a technique that has been historically employed on Wikipedia by India apologists to skirt around the bitter truth.' Please respect community agreed WP:TPG guidelines. I compassionately invite you once again to assume good faith and be civil.


 * I am fine with any language that does not leave the wiki reader with the impression that nothing has changed between 1950 and 2011, and most Dalits and low caste are facing segregation, persecution and discrimination as much as they did in 1950. The published reviews on Census data for 2011, 2001, 1991 from district / tehsil/tehseel level do not support claims of segregation by caste. The WHO worldwide and national violence reports and other social justice group surveys do not support claims of systematic persecution (yes, there are few media stories and tragic persecution case reports, but one or a dozen cases per year involving a few to hundreds of people cannot be used with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to describe 1.2 billion people and India, this article. You need better WP:RS scholarly support for that.)


 * Mrt3366 - See World Bank Report 2011. Many sections discuss exclusion, discrimination, economic and social status, etc. in context of overall poverty in India. Chapter 6 of this WB report focuses on trends in social exclusion/discrimination/mobility from caste perspective, and may offer the direct support for a balanced language sentence being proposed for this article. There are numerous Indian Planning Commission reports out there as well (for trends on literacy from 1961 to 1991 for Dalits, please see this, for example.).


 * This high level general article on India will be better without complicated sentences and without going into too much details. Just avoid taking a side, avoid leaving a wrong impression, and summarize the major sides. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I too am uneasy about connecting the two statements with an although or a though. My preferences are (a) leave the current text as is; (b) change it to ''Most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and members of other lower-caste communities continue to live in segregation and often face persecution and discrimination. Since 1950, India has declared the practice of untouchability illegal, and implemented many laws and social initiatives to protect and improve the socio-economic conditions of its Dalit population. or (c) tweak fowler's words as follows: Although India declared untouchability illegal in 1950 and has since enacted other anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives, many Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and other low castes continue to live in segregation and also face persecution and discrimination.''--regentspark (comment) 19:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am agreeable to your (c). I too was thinking about both those changes, but worried that changing it again, would turn it into an endless discussion.  Anyway, my first preference too is (a), but at this point (since three others have already expressed support for some version of (c)), I'm happy to go along with your (c).  The version that incorporates yours and CorrectKnowledge's versions, now reads: "Although India declared untouchability illegal in 1947 and has since enacted other anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives, many Dalits ('ex–Untouchables') and other low castes in rural areas continue to live in segregation and face persecution and discrimination."  Cited to 1.  and 2.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I support (b), because I too am uneasy about connecting the two statements with an although or a though. Connecting the sentences synthesizes and implies something that isolated sentences do not imply or deny. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a grammatical synthesis of two sentences using a subordinating conjunction, but it is not a synthesis of material from two different sources to advance a conclusion not present in either source. The two sources and many others, including Haviland, support exactly such an "although" or "though" statement.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The suggested tertiary citations are weak. For example, Rawat focuses on 'Northern India'; and cannot support the proposed statement(s) for all of India. I suggest using WP:RS secondary sources reporting India-wide survey on discrimination, instead of citing region-focused weak tertiary sources with low sales and low citation scores. For example, consider these citations: 1. United Nations Economic and Social Council Report, Commission on Human Rights - summarizes primary sources such as Human Rights Watch on discrimination and persecution based on caste in India; 2. World Bank Report 2011, ISBN 978-0-8213-8689-7, doi 10.1596/978-0-8213-8689-7 - this discusses the laws and social initiatives India has taken for its Dalit population since 1950 in Chapter 6. This report also discusses current status of discrimination based on castes.
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak? North India? Do you have a review of the book that states that or are you randomly musing? Yet, Rawat says, "In many parts of South India ...." in the long quote above.  UN Reports are not externally peer-reviewed as academic journal articles or textbooks are, and, as was evident in the report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of two years ago, can contain inaccuracies.  Sorry, but in such a high level article, we need solid tertiary sources, even if they are (allegedly) a little dated (such as Haviland); we cannot summarize the weight of scholarly opinion ourselves, in patently false "On the one hand ... and on the other ..."  statements.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:SCHOLARSHIP on wiki guidelines for sources. UN reports are written and then peer-reviewed by very qualified people; whether we or the world agrees or disagrees with their reports is a topic not suited for this talk page as it is not a forum.
 * In good faith, I have added the citations that I believe are better. Having read this discussion, I know this page has many talented, well meaning and inspired wiki contributors. I leave it to the community to reach a consensus, and I am okay with whatever combination of citations the community chooses from various options above. Our goal, after all, is to collaboratively help improve this article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you not perfunctorily and repetitively throw WP:XYZ and WP:xyz at established users. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says nothing about UN reports. UN reports are reviewed internally. They are uneven in quality, the equivalent of technical reports or working papers published by academics or labs at universities, and generally nowhere as reliable as peer-reviewed journal articles. Only some of them, after many revisions, are published in academic journals a few years later. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler&fowler: See WP:TPG - this talk page is neither your forum nor a forum. I invite you to note that comments here are aimed to improve this article, address all wiki contributors and encourage participation by all, including newcomers to wikipedia. Including links to official wiki policies is "making the extra effort so that other people understand you" as suggested by WP:TPG.
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * F&F is acting well within TPG. Discussion the reliability of UN reports isn't forumy at all. CMD (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * CMD - I was referring to Fowler&fowler's comment: "I suggest that you not perfunctorily and repetitively throw WP:XYZ and WP:xyz at established users." This talk page is not meant just for established users or exclusively him. The discussion of UN reports reliability isn't forumy indeed. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality issues
Folks: If the current version is revised to something assertive like "many Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and other low castes continue to live in..." and the article remains silent on improvement in their conditions from 1950 to 2010, I urge the following: ApostleVonColorado (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) that current citations for the passage being discussed in this article, be replaced because of the issue I explained above (Wolpert's page 126 is part of a chapter on Mughal times). For alternate citations for this article, I urge that we do not use poor quality tertiary sources, per WP:PSTS guidelines. Secondary sources are preferred, but external tertiary sources are useful in certain cases. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Wiki's official guidelines encourage us to screen and include reliable sources, and avoid unreliable sources. One way to screen between tertiary sources is to check the way we check articles in Wikipedia, another tertiary source. If the source for a passage is not identified in a wikipedia article, we can tag it with Citation needed and if satisfactory source is not identified, in due course we can remove the unacceptable passage. Similarly, if a non-wikipedia tertiary source such as a book does not identify reliable sources for specific content in its footnotes or in its discussion or elsewhere in the book, that tertiary source may be less reliable for sourcing the specific content than another external tertiary source that does identify its reliable sources. In my review, some of the alternate tertiary sources proposed above are not reliable. This article will be better if it screens, seeks and cites reliable sources.
 * 2) add "neutrality is disputed" tag, i.e. POV-statement at the end of the clause "many Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and...". I suggest this because reliable sources exist that suggest their conditions in the society have improved over time (and there is lot that remains to be done for everyone), and because we must not leave wiki readers with a wrong impression. Without such clarifying sentence, I dispute this passage. For support see World Bank Report 2011 (Chapter 6, ISBN 978-0-8213-8689-7, doi 10.1596/978-0-8213-8689-7). I note that the relevant chapter of this published source has numerous inline citations and a list of references for Chapter 6 on pages 265 to 270. Additionally other chapters in that book have their own references after each chapter and they too discuss castes, trends and current status of the society in India.
 * 2nd option is what I don't want to see. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 11:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be very helpful if you could propose an alternate way to write and cite the sentence to make it neutral. It's always easier to comment on a tangible proposal. Please also note, Wolpert is not the only citation used to reference the sentence. Rawat and Dalmia are two other reliable secondary sources used for the same. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 11:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid UN and World Bank reports are not externally peer-reviewed tertiary sources. They are internally peer reviewed and sometimes even that process, under pressure of meeting a deadline, is sloppy and hurried.  While they are good for quoting India's GDP numbers in the infobox, they are not appropriate for normative statements, such as the ones we are discussing, in a featured article.  For that, peer-reviewed tertiary sources published by academic presses such as the two I have provided above are more appropriate.  If ApostlevonColorado objects to these sources, he can produce academic reviews of the books in journals; simply throwing out tired jargon ("weak") or making knee-jerk deductions about the contents of a book by cursory readings of its title ("North India", "region focused") is a disruption of the talk page process, as it is patently disingenuous.  Furthermore, objecting to the books, published in 2011 and 2012 respectively, on the grounds that they have "low sales and low citation scores" is bizarre.  Should we all then be citing the Bible (highest in citation scores and sales)?  This is the society and culture section.  It is discussing the societal characteristics, the strengths and the ills.  It is not the place to discuss economic gains achieved by some Dalits or the burgeoning political clout of some Dalits.  Those discussions and additions belong to the Economics or Demographics or Politics sections.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ApostlevonColorado, In your previous statement above you said, "I leave it to the community to reach a consensus, and I am okay with whatever combination of citations the community chooses from various options above." You have now been suddenly moved to advocate slapping a neutrality statement tag on the sentence.  Are you saying that you will do this against the consensus that you have left the community to reach?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The third option, which RegentsPark and I, were advocating early on, is not to change anything in the text, to cut our losses, and call it a day. In my view, a featured article is better served by improving entire sections (or subsections) at a time, and by discussing that improvement and achieving consensus for it on the talk page first.  That way overall balance is maintained.  The days of "anyone can edit" (ie. any editor throwing a string of sentences in any part of the article) are long gone.  Even if consensus is achieved for one particular edit (say, in this case, the Dalit edit), it affects the balance.  People are usually too focused on the wording of that particular edit to ask how the balance and emphasis within the section suffers.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * user:Saravask's initiative in October 2011 of nominating, discussing, and choosing images (from among hundreds nominated) for the rotation templates is an excellent example of such a planned group process. The rotation templates now have some of the finest and most diverse images found in any country article on Wikipedia.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Fowler, let others (e.g. RP et al) speak for themselves. And ApostlevonColorado although you have point, it will be better if you speak in specific terms (post the exact language you want) or leave things as they are right now, let's not stretch it too far. My observation is that the language concerning society is closer to neutrality now than it was before. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana" color="red">3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd prefer to not change anything. If that's not acceptable, then I'd rather not link the government initiatives and the continue to live in segregation sentences. Let's face it, the reality is that it is true that there are still issues of caste segregation and discrimination in India but it is also true that the situation has improved vastly since Independence. Partly due to government initiatives, partly due to the continuing modernization and urbanization of India, and partly because of education. To say that India still has the problem of untouchability is correct. To say that the government has made it illegal and has promoted many initiatives to get rid of it is correct. To imply that these have failed is not correct (nor is it correct to say that they have succeeded). The linkage of the two is problematic, imo. --regentspark (comment) 13:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The only problem with simply saying "The Government of India abolished untouchability in 1947 and has since enacted several anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives." is that we imply, by omission, that these initiatives have been successful. An evaluating or modifying clause is needed. The "segregation, persecution, etc" clause was such a clause, but perhaps we could supply another modifier, say, "The Government of India abolished untouchability in 1947 and has since enacted several anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives, producing mixed results." Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Mrt3366 has already implemented a pretty reasonable version of the previous proposal. So, I'm taking back my suggestion in the previous post.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. Because the previous sentence clearly states that the problems of untouchability continue. I see the government line as a bland soviet style propaganda thing that shows up in country articles. Perhaps the best thing to do is to not add anything at all to the article. The addition by mrt3366 implies that government programs have utterly failed which is incorrect. Blandly stating that there are government initiatives appears to give the impression that they have succeeded. Which is equally incorrect. Clearly, any addition will require a great deal of explanation which is unsuitable for a summary style article. At this point, I !vote to leave the text as it was before the mrt addition. --regentspark (comment) 14:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. :( I don't see Mrt3366's edit as that stark (i.e. implying that the programs have failed, only that in rural areas segregation and discrimination continue). In any case, I'm done with this discussion.  So, where do I stand:  "The State of Fowler&fowler&mdash;the Show-Me-the-Source State, the Raw-Knuckle-Wrassler State, the No-Easy-Pass State&mdash;casts its one vote, half to Mrt3366 and other half to RegentsPark as the next President of Wikipedia.  Let's throw that Jimbo guy out."  I will now be going down to the bar to order a Vodka Martini.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * RP, I couldn't disagree more. If you are going to draw the meaning of a section by connectors that have been omitted (albeit, though etc. in this case), please don't fail to note that not mentioning state policy at all, in the society section, gives the impression that the Indian democracy cares little about a vast section of its underprivileged population. A version which does not include information on the constitutional protection to Dalits is unfair to the makers of Indian constitution, Indian government and Indian people by association. I don't see how leaving the sentence out entirely is going to improve neutrality of the section. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 14:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there is an implication that the untouchability situation has not been addressed by government action (in the mrt version). However, like I say somewhere above, if that version is the consensus version, then I'm ok with it. --regentspark (comment) 15:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * On reliability of UN Reports. Some reports are more reliable than others. Stereotyping all UN reports as unreliable is wrong. Like all published secondary or tertiary sources, we must screen and determine if a UN report is worthy to be relied upon. One way to do so is to check whether the report cites published, peer reviewed scholarly sources and those sources when checked support the chapter/article/"content of interest" in the report. If it does, that report is more reliable than say another report that does not identify any published, peer reviewed reliable sources. After all, this is what wiki guidelines suggest and what we at wikipedia try to do.


 * Claims such as internal peer reviewed versus external peer reviewed is neither relevant nor always true. Any peer review is better than no peer review. I have witnessed external peer review of some UN reports (I agree some go through only internal peer review). I have also witnessed how many books and tertiary sources such as textbooks/etc get commissioned, written and published - these books have deadlines, and many do not go through quality peer review at all, or the kind of peer review that highly competitive, high impact factor journal articles go through. The best way, in my humble opinion, is to skip superficial gloss of a textbook/book/report/etc, and focus on the question: does this tertiary source cite published, peer reviewed scholarly sources inline, and those sources when checked support the chapter/article/"content of interest"? Rely on those that thus persuade you as reliable. In the case of UN report I cited to improve this article, it does cite numerous sources for Chapter 6; and on relative basis, it is a far better source than some others mentioned here.
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Presently what the article says is in normal font and what you might add is in bold,"“Social classes are defined by thousands of endogamous hereditary groups, often termed as jātis, or 'castes'.[279] India declared untouchability illegal in 1947 and has since enacted other anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives and, according to world bank survey data, there is some intergenerational mobility for dalits,[280] albeit numerous reports suggest that many Dalits ('ex–Untouchables') and other low castes in rural areas continue to live in segregation and face persecution and discrimination.[281][282]”"
 * BTW, I am not going to impose this change. You will have to do this yourself or find somebody else to do it for you. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mrt3366 - I have been reflecting on this, and I need a bit more of 'think time' before I have a concrete proposal to share, if any. Meanwhile I will just comment on your latest draft and then share my confusion.


 * I am not a fan of long, connected sentences. They are difficult to comprehend. They may lead to synthesis and unintended impressions. Here is another version based on Proposal 3 from you/RegentsPark/others. It feels better to me than current article version, although still unsatisfactory:
 * Traditional Indian society is defined by a relatively strict social hierarchy. The Indian caste system embodies much of the social stratification and many of the social restrictions found in the Indian subcontinent. Social classes are defined by thousands of endogamous hereditary groups, often termed as jātis, or castes.[xyz1] India declared untouchability illegal in 1947 and has since enacted other anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives.[xyz2] India has witnessed some intergenerational mobility for Dalits ("ex–Untouchables").[xyz3] Still, many Dalits and other low castes continue to live in segregation and face persecution and discrimination.[xyz4]


 * My confusion, and hesitation in proposing something, arise from the use of words segregation, persecution and discrimination. These are loaded words. They imply severe things in America and many parts of the world. Segregation here implied signs outside restaurant and hotels that refused entry to some people, signs outside restrooms that refused entry to some people, mandating people to sit in the back of the bus, separate segregated schools and so on. There are thousands of published sources that describe segregation in America. When a wiki reader reads India has segregation, do you mean the same thing? Are there segregated hotels/restrooms/buses/trains etc in India? - independent surveys and social entrepreneurs predominantly publish no. Buses, trains are reported to be packed and bulging in India, not segregated by castes; etc. Persecution similarly, reminds of systematic subjugation, imprisonment, mistreatment and extermination of people, such as what happened during World War II. When a wiki reader reads India has persecution, do you mean the same thing? Again, independent surveys, social entrepreneurs and secondary sources publish no. Don't get me wrong. There are incidences that have been reported. But, if a newspaper reports 500 people in one village, or 4,000 people in a town, or even 50,000 people in a city are being mistreated or that they do not have access to drinking water or are suffering something along with the general population, is this enough to use the word persecution? Should reported incidents be generalized to paint India, this article, 165 million Dalits and 1.2 billion people society as one with persecution like what happened during World War II and other times of recent human history? A fair summary would avoid excessive and unwarranted, poorly sourced sweeping claims or implied message. A fair summary would also not hide information, and include major issues in a balanced way.
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You do have a point and I suggest you take your time and propose something solid with good, reliable sources. Good luck. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 18:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to put a largest cities template in the demographics section
I don't wish to restore the images which I added to the article previously and supposedly made "a mess". I don't want to do that. What I am proposing is, let's make a largest city template (like these Kazakhstan, Belgium, People's Republic of China, etc and there are many) [and obviously I am willing to help if a consensus is reached], listing top 10-20 cities of India based on criteria like population/economy and I suggest we add images of top 4 modern cities of India that will help give the readers some idea about largest populated areas/settlements/cities in India and reflect the modernization which India has undergone. It will also be more conforming to the status quo followed by other FAs. Feel free to weigh in. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 10:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC) 17:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we need to make the template to include images of top 4–5 cities? Besides, 5 new images might be a bit excessive. I'll wait for other editors to comment. I didn't go through this painful process to decide which images to keep in the article. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 11:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Do we need to make the template to include images of top 4–5 cities?" - Jokingly speaking, why do you take everything as reversed to what I actually mean? haha.. I meant that a template is more necessary than Images. Not only the images of modern India but also a list of largest cities is lacking in the article. We need to do something about it and it need not be so painful. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 11:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And most other articles about Countries, have a list of largest cities. I do not think it will harm the quality of the article, rather I believe it will enhance it. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 11:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Including a template of largest cities in the demographics section is a good idea. Other FAs Canada, Australia, Germany etc. have one. Considering your previous experience on this page, you should be happy that at least I agree with some of the things you propose. :) <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 11:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This was discussed in the past and the template was removed because it doesn't add any value to the article. I for one think that these city templates are nothing but an eyesore. One of the reasons I stopped editing this article or even contributing to the talk page is because this has consistently become a page that people seek to use for glorification. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know there was a consensus on this. I find such templates helpful, information on major cities is something I look for while reading such articles. However, I accept your point, there is no need to clutter the article with trivial information. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 13:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"This was discussed in the past" - where? Don't just throw around claims, that hampers the progress of discussion. (I retract the redundant statement) And even if there was a consensus, it can be changed for the betterment of the article. "it doesn't add any value to the article." - I humbly but firmly disagree. List of largest cities gives a rough idea of countries cities and growth. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 13:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree in entirety with Spiff. No need for more clutter.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Same here—no to a city template. Saravask 22:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Clutter, clutter, clutter, ..Stop harping on that word F&F. It won't make it any worse than it already is.


 * @ why? Wikipedia is not a vote. And he/she doesn't like it is not a credible rationale. come on. You've got to be better than that. Other FAs Canada, Australia, Germany etc. have one. And we must follow the convention. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 06:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And you better show something other than WP:OSE and stop repeating yourself like a parrot. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "And you better show something other than WP:OSE" - I already have. Look above. Information on major cities is something that ought to be there in an article about a Country because it gives the reader an Idea about population and infrastructural growth that the country has undergone. Now you are free to disagree. You may say it's an "eyesore", albeit I don't think it is just an eyesore. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 07:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary clutter. Merely providing a list of cities doesn't really say anything about infrastructure or growth. I assume that every country has a few cities, regardless of the quality of their infrastructure and regardless of their growth rates. --regentspark (comment) 15:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not talking about putting this into economy section, mind it. This could be put in demography section and might help give the readers some idea about largest populated areas/settlements/cities in India, you're saying that's unnecessary information? You mean existence and use of these templates are all unnecessary? <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 17:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * City templates are fine with me as long as they're in the right place. A country article is meant to be a summary and a template with a list of cities of the sort you're proposing is unnecessary detail here. --regentspark (comment) 17:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I generally approve of city templates. They aren't that large, and they give me a rough idea on whether the population is distributed throughout various areas or concentrated on a few major cities (if it's just one city, then that could just be said in prose for much less space). This article however covers is quite well with the current population density map, so there doesn't seem to be a strong lack of population information, although I note the demographics section is about half the size of the Economy section above and a quater of the size of the Culture section below. CMD (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "they give me a rough idea on whether the population is distributed throughout various areas or concentrated on a few major cities " - I don't think the current article gives an idea about what the exact population is, do they? And you're also assuming that the readers are familiar with Indian map. Wikipedia serves a global audience so it's safe to assume, I guess, that many are not acquainted with locations of Indian cities on the map. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 07:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a Largest cities of India, in the demographics section for the above-mentioned reason. Hope it helps. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 12:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks awful. But, let's see what other editors think. --regentspark (comment) 13:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no to such ugliness. Mrt3366, it is time to take it on the chin and move on.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"it is time to take it on the chin and move on" - you're free to saunter on with your uncouthness. "Looks awful" - "Absolutely no to such ugliness." are not credible rationale and they seem woefully similar to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. They give information about Indian cities based on their population. Besides, many other FAs have that same thing. It doesn't harm the article in anyway it enhances it. The population figures are based on census 2011. I don't see why should anyone say "no" to that. Its primary objective is not to provide entertainment/eye-candy for people rather it is to inform the readers. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 13:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not that fine because most populous cities may not be the most developed or 'strategically or otherwise' important cities of the nation. Also, in my browser, the template is not looking tidy.  AshLey  Msg 13:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Right now, the header of the template is too large and the line spacing between each of the cities is excessive (I am comparing this to Germany). Six images also seem a bit too much. Basically, a template, like an image, should not dominate the text. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 13:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Never underestimate the importance of aesthetics and good taste Mrt3366! Especially when the added value is questionable. We can do without that ugly list and, as a wise person above says, "it is time to take it on the chin and move on"! --regentspark (comment) 13:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "may not be the most developed or 'strategically or otherwise' important cities" - but it is not a list of most important cities, though it includes all the important cities of India, it was in the demographics section because it listed the most populous cities. I am sorry but your logic doesn't add up. "the header of the template is too large and the line spacing between each of the cities is excessive " — so? "Never underestimate the importance of aesthetics and good taste" — As far as I know, I am not doing that. By the way, aesthetics and good taste cannot be the only reason to remove the template from the article. You're free to edit the template, I don't own it. But the list, however "ugly" it may look to someone, is important and pertinent to the section. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 14:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did like the template present on the United States, and do we need 20 cities? --sarvajna (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Although we do not need 20 cities, it is more informative than a list of 10 cities. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 14:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about the looks of the template
Does this look workable?

'''or does this look better? (Try viewing this in other browsers if you sense something is wrong)'''

If not, what can I do to make it more aesthetic and "not ugly"? <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 15:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO we can use the color combination of US template Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas of the United States --sarvajna (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Both United States and Germany colour combinations are fine with me. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 15:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Decide among yourselves what color combination or other modifications you want. That will help me tremendously. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 16:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's take this one step at a time. First let's get consensus on inclusion of a template and then we can worry about how it looks. --regentspark (comment) 18:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not think we need a template, just a mention in the article of the top five in prose somewhere would do. A template gives undue weight to city populations to what is an overview article on the whole of India in which more than a mention of the top five is not really needed. The city template already exists in Demographics of India which where it is more suited. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Firm Objection I object to this and any other metropolitan centers (cities) template. India is preeminently (and in my view thankfully still) a rural country, with 70% per cent of its population living in villages.  Why does it needs a hoakey List of Cities template, whether 5, 10, 15 or 20?  If you insist on a template, it would be far more representative to have one about rural India.  India's population breakdown suggests that you would need to have two rural templates in place before you can have one urban template.  The US, Canada, and Australia are preeminently urban countries.   (Sorry, I didn't see MilborneOne's post, but he and I are on the same page.)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In the "Demographics" section, the major urban areas are mentioned. I see Ahmedabad is missing in there. We can add that. In this way, we will have major urban areas mentioned.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with Dwaipayan.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's better to avoid the template, aesthetically and also for the sake of equilibrium. The list of 20 cities, selected from the source based on population, even doesn't represent the urban demographics in a balanced way. Without a clear consensus, how we could set the threshold of population for inclusion/exclusion. In the list of 20 Vadodara, with a population of 16,66,600, found the place, whereas Ludhiana, with a popn of 16,13,878, is omitted as if it failed in the board exam. However, if we consider the list of Urban agglomerates per [this census report, there will be many alterations in the list of 20. [[User:Ashley_thomas80| AshLey ]] Msg 06:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC) changed indentation 06:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @F&F "India is preeminently (and in my view thankfully still) a rural country" - what do you mean thankfully? And how is your logic relevant here anyway? India has poverty so what? Does it make whatever urban agglomerations there are not worthy of mention? India has progressed and the depiction of India in this article is heavily biased towards the poverty-stricken part of India. There is not a glimpse of the modernized part of India. Not one picture of urban parts. If this continues then I don't think we're being neutral at all. I am saying nothing exceptional, most other articles about important countries (Including FAs) have this sort of a list. Now, I don't know if it looks "ugly" to you and you might be delighted to see that India is mostly poor. And frankly I couldn't care less about what you feel. <P>"if we consider the list of Urban agglomerates per this census report, there will be many alterations in the list of 20" - that is useful information and I think we should work on that. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 07:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. There is a discussion on ANI about this. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 08:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, in my view, the list represents the Urban India better, compared to the previous version. But let's wait for more input. It still looks misaligned; spacing before the last line looks awful in my browser.  AshLey  Msg 09:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

the spacing in the second template has some problem (or may be its my browser). I am sure that can be resolved. The rest looks good for me.--sarvajna (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * also IMO we can just have 10 cities if not 20--sarvajna (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Ash, I told you already, please take a screen shot and send me. Have you checked my other template? Same error? This seems like an issue to me, albeit not a serious one. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font size="2" face="verdana"  color="red">3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk page?)  (New section?) 09:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * An outside drive-by opinion: I think these tables look very nice! The blue one is better looking than the grey one.  I especially like the well-chosen thumbnails of Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, etc.  I think this table adds to the article; it is certainly not unnecessary clutter. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

But anyway, the name of the template is 'Largest urban agglomerations in India by population' and that is corresponding to the list of million-plus agglomerations in India as opposed to list of most populous cities in India. When it comes to depicting images of top four Indian cities, like I've already repeated multiple times in different pages, the top cities from east, west, north and south India were chosen according to their city-rankings (importance), not agglomerations. Bangalore is the third in that respect, Chennai is Sixth (not talking about agglomerations), hence it's better to put Bangalore in the template instead of Chennai. P.S. There should not be any ego involved in a decision-making process like this. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree with inclusion of the template for this article. Pale blue is a better colour here than grey, but a maximum of three images should suffice, in line with the style of template used on other country articles. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I am talking about. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Six images seems a bit much, but three images will require a different style (Australia). It might be better to go with four images and the same style. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 06:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Limited it to top 4 cities from East, west, north and south India. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The pale blue template looks alright to me. The four cities selected represent India best both geographically and demographically. So, hopefully, there will be no issues this time. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 06:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The second part of my comment is no longer applicable. The fourth city appears to be oscillating between Bangalore and Chennai every five minutes. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 08:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on including the template in this article. But I have concerns on the template itself. The name of the template is 'Largest cities of India' corresponding to this list List of most populous cities in India. But, User:Mrt3366 has changed the content from cities to urban agglomerations, corresponding to List of million-plus agglomerations in India. Ideally, a new template should be created for urban agglomerations if desired. Further, regarding the pictures, I think the top four cities in the list should be included. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 08:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly think that there should not be any issues in including a template, just to clarify this template looks good on my browser. But I still think that we can mention just 10 cities instead of 20 --sarvajna (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Anbu121 says the template's name is 'Largest cities of India', that’s . That's the template page name. And even if that were true according to the list of most populous cities in India, Bangalore comes third and Chennai comes sixth.
 * In Wikipedia, the template name is same as the template page name. I am surprised by your ignorance of this. Please don't accuse others blindly (as you did on my talk page) without examining the situation. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 12:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Mrt3366, adding the template to the article is not a good idea. Not only is there no consensus for a template, but there is also unmitigatedly none for the atrociously ugly vanilla images of Indian cities. They simply can not go into this FA. There is a basic and longstanding consensus on this page, achieved by a much longer and more inclusive discussion, to not include airbrushed elitist vanilla images of India. Whether other countries have such images or not is unimportant. Please also don't patronize other editors here by suggesting that their objections are of the "I don't like it" variety. I won't revert now, but I expect you to self-revert. Please respect Wikipedia consensus. You are violating Wikipedia policy. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  10:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Unfortunately, Mrt3366, adding the template to the article is not a good idea." - you can say that because it is indeed unfortunate that you and some other editors still don't think it's a good idea even though there some solid reasons (you might argue they are not solid, but I don't care) why we should include the template without thinking twice. Yes we may quibble about the looks or the stats of the template all we want but that alone or WP:IDON'TLIKEIT cannot serve as grounds for removal of the template altogether, especially when other FAs have these in demographics section. Like an editor informed me "“FAs have for a long time been plagued by ownership issues and some weird desire to allow their primary contributors to veto edits of which they disapprove”" This needs to change guys. I most sincerely implore you all to just think straight. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Vote count as of 11:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Editors who oppose a template: Saravask, RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, Fowler&fowler, CMD, MilborneOne, AshleyThomas80, Dwaipayan.
 * Editors who support a template: Mrt3366, CorrectKnowledge, Ratnakar.kulkarni, CMD, ApostleVonColorado, Steve and NULL.

There is no consensus, not even remotely. I respectfully suggest that Mrt3366 not violate Wikipedia policy. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't count heads, wikipedia is not a vote. FWIW, Ashley is undecided. Dwaipayan didn't explicitly oppose the proposal. CMD actually said he approves of these templates. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC) 06:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. Mrt3366, to keep adding the template when there is clear consensus against its inclusion is disruptive. The sooner you realize that consensus sometimes means that the stuff you like won't be included in an article the better for you. --regentspark (comment) 13:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus against or for it. Don't blur the line in between. RP. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I finally took the trouble to read Mrt3366's long (brevity usually works better!) post here and, at the very end, he does make a good point. The images that we do have in the article do tend to focus more on history and culture rather than on the more modern India. Perhaps we should consider adding a few images that reflect the growing economy side of India as well. For example, the picture of sea link with the skyline of Bombay in the background was a particularly nice one but there could be others as well. --regentspark (comment) 15:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that is a slightly different issue and one that I'm sympathetic to. Last year, when we had the images discussion, there was a plan to add images to the economy section, but it was never carried out because it took us over two months to do the Culture section.  I propose that we replace the Bombay Stock exchange picture with a rotating template and invite nominations from editors.  We could then choose 8 pictures for this template.  As before, only high resolution un-photoshopped pictures will be considered.  RP, you could open a section below for this at your convenience after others have responded, and are on board.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Or, perhaps we should have this (new) discussion in another section, otherwise, people might think it is more of the same. What's your thought?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am on board, though I am not sure many editors are going to accept rotation of the BSE image (see this post). Using high resolution un-photoshopped pictures also seems like a good idea. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 15:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Why don't we let Mrt3366 take the lead on this. I'll drop a note on his talk page.--regentspark (comment) 16:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * CK, I don't see any mention of BSE in that link. One could get even more creative by setting up rotation templates for both BSE and the Plowing images, one for the modern economy, the other for the traditional (which, remember, is still by far the major economy of India).  The BSE and the Plowing images would, of course, be grandfathered in to those templates.  In other words, one would see them, but not all the time.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

CK, that link, btw, is hardly representative. It has some new, drive by, editors, hallucinating about a conspiracy to keep India down. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rotating both images looks like a much better idea to me. As a drive by editor suggested, we don't want the images to deliberately "portray the weaker side of India" :). Btw, I don't claim that I was representing a majority viewpoint. I was just using my crystal ball to foresee the problems with the idea. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk»  16:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with the template?
After wading through some typical incoherent messages bordering on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, some of those irrelevant and highly obfuscatory comments on this page, a "friendly warning" and multiple talkbacks on my talk-page, I simply still don't understand what on earth is your problem with a Largest cities template? It will solve both the following issues in one step if we choose to implement it cautiously enough:
 * 1) Conforming this article to other FAs about nations.
 * 2) Addressing the complaint(s) of this article being tendentious in favour of weaker/poorer parts of India.

And particularly, being a veteran as you are, you might want to reconsider your callously done head-count because as far as my knowledge goes, wikipedia is not a friggin' vote!! And also, don't accuse me of the things I didn't do, I never said just because I would like to include the template, it should be there. I don't wish to repeat my points endlessly. If you haven't got my point already. Then keep reading them. Please comment succinctly lest people like me get furthermore confounded. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a number of problems here, it seems to me.
 * The "regulars" here, who are among other things zealously preserving this article's featured article status, are acting like they own it.
 * You, Mrt3366, haven't been unfailingly polite in your interactions here, you've been shouting a bit, you haven't shown much deference to the regulars. (Should you have to show such deference?  No, of course not.  But does it help if you do?  Absolutely it helps.)
 * You're right, Wikipedia tries not to do votes. But if F&F's count is correct, there is no consensus for including the table.  But by the same count, there's no consensus for not including it, either.  So who wins?  I honestly don't know.  (WP:BOLD says that we're all free to improve the encyclopedia as we see fit, and personally, I think the burden of proof should be on the objectors who want to remove an improvement, not the other way around.  But this is probably a highly debatable point.)
 * Finally, I'm a tiny bit insulted to be labeled a "driveby", as if that means I don't count. Yes, I know I called myself that first, but it doesn't mean my opinion is any less valid in a discussion like this.  (If anything, as an uninvolved observer my opinion is in one sense more valid, as it's more likely to be closer to the unknowable aggregate opinion of all the millions of people who will read this article without ever commenting here.  The "regulars", dedicated though they are to this article's preservation and improvement, are inevitably way too close to it to ever really know how it looks to outsiders, or what they'd really like to see or not see.)
 * —Steve Summit (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Since I'm not a regular here, I shouldn't sound as if I know who the "regulars" are and aren't. Apologies if I've seemed to miscategorize anybody. —scs 14:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "You, Mrt3366, haven't been unfailingly polite in your interactions here" - And I don't claim to be. Step in my shoes here for a minute. My impoliteness, to put it mildly, is nothing in comparison what I have been through in last few days. I wholly agree with you on every point. By the way, there is a discussion at DRN. Comment there if you will. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur with Steve Summit's observations.
 * I am not persuaded that there is something wrong with the template, or with including it. Similar templates exist and add useful, notable information for many country articles: United States, United Kingdom, and many developing countries such as Brazil, China, South Africa, Russia, United Arab Emirates, Thailand and Colombia. It is unpersuasive to suggest that India is mostly rural or has slums, and pictures of major cities may be misleading. It is unpersuasive because many countries such as Thailand, with rural % of population similar to India, have this template; and they should because it is a notable aspect of the subject. Slums exist in Brazil (where they are called favelas), China and 125+ other countries; slums everywhere have the same issues: millions living in shanty towns that lack sanitation, solid waste piled up in streets, etc. inside/next to major cities. Poverty is worse in sub-Saharan Africa than India. Yet, I like the fact that Kenya and Namibia have the template that is being proposed for India. Cities and impressive infrastructure are notable aspects of any country, and are worth including in country article. I support this template, and like version 2. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

About taking the lead on Images in India (article)
I don't know about taking the lead anywhere. However I will suggest balance some of the images depicting past heritage of India with more contemporary ones to illustrate the urbanization which India has gone through. I am going to list the images below. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I might add more. I think Geography section must demonstrate the geographical diversity of India to a degree. These are the realities of present day India. And we are painting a picture of India which is somewhat biased against the reality itself. I concede, it has been my personal observation, unfortunately or not, that majority of India's teenage population is not interested in learning Bharatanatyam / other classical dance anymore. India has been infected/influenced (choose what you may) by western society. That reality must not be kept under the rugs. That's all. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion about adding images to the "Economy" section, not to other sections of the India page. There is a protocol already in place on how to select such pictures.  It goes back to last year when user:Saravask took the initiative in organizing it.  The protocol requires setting up rules and guidelines for image nomination.  This you have not only not done, but you have also nominated images that largely fail those standards.  Vital to any nomination process is an agreement on image quality and content.  Per Wikipedia etiquette, the large number of editors who took part in that discussion, should be invited to this as well.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "The protocol requires setting up rules and guidelines for image nomination." - is there any documentation of this protocol? Is it mandatory? I am trying to change the protocol. Although, I appreciate Saravask's efforts, I am not obliged to follow saravask's protocol. I posted what the article needs in my view. I didn't include them in the article. Simple. You may comment on the images. That would be helpful. Thank you. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Only three of your images belong to the Economy section, the first three. The all easily fail.
 * The first image has been photoshopped from this publicity photo. It has blown highlights and is too low resolution, a mere 948 × 504 pixels.
 * The second image has been photoshopped from this Flickr image (by user:Indianhilbilly, a banned sock of user:Nikkul). It has excessive tone mapping and is also too low-resolution (800 × 546 pixels).
 * The third image has major Jpeg compression artifacts, is out-of-focus, and is again too low resolution (707 × 406)
 * If you think I am being too severe, please submit the images to WP:FPC and watch how fast you get "speedy fail" from the editors there.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "If you think I am being too severe, please submit the images to WP:FPC and watch how fast you get "speedy fail" from the editors there." - Did I say that? Don't assume things man. You're not being severe, you're being unreasonable by suggesting all that. Which policy can you back your claims with?? You speak as though having "too low resolution", or being "photoshopped" means the image fails to meet some sort of criteria. I mean is there a strict policy or guideline that I should know about? If not, then kindly justify your unwarranted focus on these details.
 * Do you mean that these places are non-existent? The images exist in Wikipedia, don't they? I don't know what's your problem. "Low"/"major" are subjective words. Why do you argue like this? <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Mrt3366, I think it is better to stick with images for the Economy section for the time being. We're not going to go through the process of deciding on all images again so please try to focus on one thing at a time. And do try to tune down the combativeness. This is a collaborative endeavor. --regentspark (comment) 14:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In fairness, while I agree that Mrt3366 has been somewhat combative, it must be pointed out that plenty of other editors have been also. I don't know what history (if any) there may be here, but what I see is a well-intentioned editor making good-faith efforts to improve an (already good) article, and a bunch of others kicking those attempts down with unthinking, knee-jerk comments like "unnecessary clutter" and "looks awful" and "absolutely no to such ugliness". —Steve Summit (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "unthinking knee-jerk comments?" Would you like to submit the three images to WP:FPC and hear what the experts there have to say about both their poor image quality and low encyclopedic value (for a featured article, let alone a featured picture)?  If not, then don't make unsubstantiated comments.  There is a hard fought consensus on this page on the quality of images suitable to this Featured Article.  There is also a body of guidelines on Wikipedia on what constitutes good image quality and encyclopedic value.  A lone ranger editor, with little technical or collaborative skills, can't just turn up on such a page and expect to have his way without regard to established Wikipedia traditions and the work already put in by productive editors.  Mrt3366 has said, he is "trying to change the protocol," but hasn't told us what this new protocol might be (for which he will need to seek new consensus).
 * I'm flat out of time now. Later this weekend, I will propose some guidelines (as well as image examples) and we can establish new consensus.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again you say irrelevant things. This is your problem fowler. WP:FPC? Did anyone claim that these pictures will pass through WP:FPC? These may not be the best of all but it's better than nothing at all. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 15:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler, I will say just two things, and then I will endeavor to leave this page forever, never to trouble you again.
 * There is no rule or guideline that I know of mandating that all images on Wikipedia be of featured quality. Moreover, you won't get much sympathy from me by deferring to the gatekeepers of WP:FPC, as they're somewhat notorious for their arbitrary, self-imposed, raise-the-bar-forever "standards".
 * Do I think you're being too severe? Yes, absolutely.  You've done nothing but criticize and mock Mrt3366, and now you're mocking me.  Everything about your behavior here makes it seem as if you and a few others WP:OWN this article, and that you will suffer no edits to it by anyone else without forcing them to endure a gauntlet of "consensus building" here first, in which there will never be consensus because you will find fault forever with anything that you don't like.
 * If you were among the editors who raised this article to featured status, I salute that effort, because I know how much work it can be. But I cannot salute your too-strict defensive actions now. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The point you seem to be missing Mrt3366 is that we're only talking about the Economy section for now. Once again, I suggest that you stick to that section, otherwise this is not going to work at all or someone else will need to take the lead in figuring out this process. --regentspark (comment) 17:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Take the lead" - what does that mean anyway? What exactly do you expect me to do by taking the lead? I have posted images already. Now if you like, choose from them and use them in economy section. What else am I to do? I am not impressed by your mode of operation here. It appears to me (and others) that you're (plural) assuming that the article belongs to some special set of editors only, and that I am your subordinate. You have not given me even one WP:POLICY or Guideline which says I cannot use a template here. Like User:ummit said above, it suddenly struck me that with all your knee-jerk excuses you want to suppress anything I am doing. So shut up. Just shut up and stop lecturing me on what to do! I am assuming bad faith with good reason that you're (plural) simply going to draw attention to all this and leave everything that I am trying to achieve outside. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Mrt3366 tells a level-headed editor, one who doesn't become angry or unbalanced, to "shut up", etc.
 * He dismisses F&F's assessments of his images. F&F has a years-long record of proposing elegant, yet balance- and accuracy-conscious, prose and images.
 * After glancing at the above exchanges and images, the phrase "old is gold" yet again comes to mind. Saravask 19:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I must admit I'm disappointed, Mrt3366. You have been railing in multiple forums about not being able to get your images into the article but when you're handed the opportunity to work on doing just that, albeit in one section, you flub it in a grand sort of way. It seems to me that collaborative work is just not your style (did you even look at the earlier discussions?). However, that's not the point. Clearly, letting you take the lead was a bad idea and we'd better do a reboot. --regentspark (comment) 23:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just been reading up on this page—sure gets busy! I've been participating here in a small way from time to time for a few years. The last time I did was during the work on picking photos for the Culture section, and perhaps others (I didn't stay involved for the whole duration of the process). Fowler is right, I think, to say a protocol has been established for selecting photos. It's not that this system must be followed for new photo discussions, but I would argue it should be. It was a rather amazing process to be involved in—many many editors with differing opinions were able to reach agreements. No one got exactly the set of photos they liked best, as far as I know, but all agreed the protocol was sound and were happy to abide by its results. An example of massive collaboration on Wikipedia at its finest—not something you see everyday around here. As far as explaining the protocol, well, it's all in the archives—probably spread out over multiple archived pages. There's probably a good write-up in there somewhere describing it. Personally I don't have the time to wade through the vast archives trying to find it. But if there is interest in improving the photos in the Economy section, I highly recommend looking into this and working that way. Finally, Mrt3366, you posted some images and wrote "You may comment on the images." Fowler's comments regarding tone mapping, blown highlights, compression artifacts, etc, are exactly the kind of feedback we all gave for the photos nominated for the Culture section last year (or whenever that was). I agree, more or less, with his critique of the photos. Also, when others have suggested you "take the lead", I think they mean "in the manner other editors 'took the lead' in starting the nomination process when we went through this the last time". This talk page has a huge history, and although Fowler sometimes acts "ownery", part of this is due, I think, to his familiarity with the history here, the standards and protocols that have been agreed upon in the past. Pfly (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please kindly for heavens' sake without wasting anymore of my time as well as yours, provide the link to that ever-important protocol? <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

More neutrality issues and proposal to selectively tag
Thanks to Mrt3366’s invitation, I have begun reviewing this article. My verification effort is focussed around caste-related claims, and the impression it leaves readers of the state of society in current India. In good faith, I submit the September 8 2012 version of this article has neutrality issues, WP:V violation, and coatracking issues. I will patiently wait for constructive comments and consensus. If this is absent, after a few weeks, I will tag these sentences in this article with Better source or POV-statement as appropriate.
 * 1) To save space, I refer to the first incidence elsewhere on this talk page (see this). It remains unresolved.
 * 2) The second incidence is in India section, last paragraph. It reads, “Yet, India has also been weighed down by seemingly unyielding poverty, both rural and urban;[99] by religious and caste-related violence;[101]......” This sentence follows the sentence economic liberalization period of 1990s. The sentence uses “yet” thereby creating the impression that what follows is true about current India. Both [99] and [100] are the same tertiary source: Metcalf & Metcalf, pages 265-270. I have read it. This is a tertiary source, with no inline citations to verify its claims, and was published in 2002. This dated source is not a reliable source for leaving the reader with impressions about current India. Additionally, abundant peer reviewed journal articles suggest that India’s poverty has dropped dramatically and the claim ‘seemingly unyielding poverty’ made does not reflect the balance of dominant view in secondary published sources. See, e.g. this peer reviewed journal article at pages 165-187, and this.02 at pages 4-15, and this.03 at pages 497-510 (see 517-521 if short of time). The dominant view: ‘’in contrast to the period before the reforms, urban economic growth in the period after the reforms has brought significant gains to the rural poor as well as the urban poor lifting hundreds of millions across caste lines from extreme poverty. Despite these gains, poverty remains an important issue and continuing challenge for India.” The 'seemingly unyielding poverty' language in the current article needs to be revised. On claims of caste-related violence, I find support in the cited source, it is weak and dated; on religion-related violence, I find better support but it is dated; a better more current source is urged to improve the quality of this article.
 * 3) The third incidence is in India section, last para. It reads: “Common traditional eating customs include meals taken on or near the floor, caste- and gender-segregated dining,[298][299] and ......”. Citation 298 is Schoenhals, and 299 is Seymour. Both are tertiary sources, but very dated. The cited pages 119 and 81 respectively, and even the chapters are about 1960s or earlier!! I looked elsewhere for support in “caste-” and "gender-” segregated dining for India after 1995 to the date of publication of these sources. I failed to find any. The cited sources fail the WP:VNT content policy guidelines. Suggestions: (a) change ‘include’ to ‘included, during 1960s and before,....”; or (b) find better current source; or (c) revise it appropriately.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Another attempt at downplaying Indian Hinduism's caste- and poverty-ridden reality, whether done via undue "India Shining" glamour shots or via questionable source niggling. And all this about readily attested ongoing social customs.


 * As for your last bullet, perhaps you did not notice the word "traditional"; whatever social evolution occurred since the 1970s and so on are not likely to impact what is considered "traditional"—is take-out chicken manchurian, tony integrated dining rooms at Infosys, etc. be taken as emblematically "traditional" Indian customs? Are they even prevalent enough to warrant haggling over? The same goes with the images.


 * My view on the rest coincides with that of F&F at Talk:Caste. Thanks. Saravask 21:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @AVC, If you are looking to tag sentences in this article, you should come prepared with accurate statements. The book A Concise History of Modern India, was published in 2006 and has an epilogue which covers the ground up to the end of 2005.  This book by Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf, famous historians of modern India, is the most widely used text on modern Indian history world-wide.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @AVC, As it turns out, in a bizarre coincidence, I just received the 3rd edition of their book, although CUP seems to have it pegged for publication in October 2012.  Here is the last sentence of the book (page 294): "Even though much remains to be done, especially in regard to eradicating poverty and securing effective structures of governance, India's achievements since independence in sustaining freedom and democracy have been singular among the world's new nations."  Earlier, it quotes from A. K. Sen's essay (2011).  So it is up to date.  I will soon read the last chapter and reformulate that sentence if need be.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with AVC. IMO, there should be at least two or three tags in this article. It lacks many things in several areas. It doesn't deserve to be a featured article if it only chooses references from one side of the polemic and selectively represents them along with the images. Someone should review its FA status ASAP. This article is plagued with ownership issues. We don't need it to be a featured article at the expense of neutrality. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The main problem is the poppycock peddlers who come by every now and then rather than the original editors of the article. THat said, I agree that the FA status should be removed and this article left to the elements so that it can become another one of the numerous such articles on Wikipedia filled with bovine and equine excrement. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, I agree with you. I too think that the FA status should be removed. But not this section where you say "and this article left to the elements so that it can become another one of the numerous such articles on Wikipedia filled with bovine and equine excrement." <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 15:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 September 2012
Update spelling of state name Orissa to Odisha And language from Oriya to Odia

Akpatro (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the FAQ at the top of this page.-- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 07:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Table for cities
I saw long discussions here and on the dispute resolution noticeboard about including a table of cities. I have looked at other articles like Australia, Germany, Japan and Canada which all have an identical table. It improves the article. Hoshigaki (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you and welcome to Wikipedia!  I hope you enjoy your stay here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, . I concur with you. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Concerns over last sentences in Economy section
There is a one-sentence paragraph in Economy section of this version of the article on a report by Datamonitor, which can be resolved by simply removing this not-so-important sentence.

The last paragraph of Economy in this version describes in detail the different credit rating agency's recent dealing with India's credit rating. It seems this paragraph was added relatively recently (even the references are not formatted in sfn). Such large detail about the credit ratings does not match with the level of summarisation other parts of the article have; and also reflect WP:RECENTISM.

I propose to completely remove this paragraph, and maybe mention that credit rating agencies are doubting India's economic stability due to many factors including political roadblocks in economic improvement.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with removing the entire paragraph without substituting anything. Credit ratings are not something that will make sense to a user and detract from the overall description of the economy. A rating downgrade should be only used to support characterizations of the economy (slowing growth, reduced fx balances, weakening currencies) and that only when a reliable source makes the connection. --regentspark (comment) 16:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the single sentence referenced by Datamonitor report is insignificant. However, the sovereign credit ratings by the Big three credit rating agencies (S&P, Moody and Fitch) are significant. The three ratings are used separately, especially when two of them disagree, to assess the current economic and political climate of the country. So, combining them into one would perhaps not be a good idea and could also lead to synthesis. The ratings can be updated annually or whenever they come out, like other economic data. Besides, they save us the inconvenience of going through individual reports like this. In absence of a better method for representing India's current economic condition, we can let the paragraph on ratings stay for now.


 * @regentspark, the paragraph on ratings is actually quite well written. Undue jargon (BB- etc.) is avoided and characterizations of economy like inflation, public finances etc. are discussed. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 17:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of using credit ratings uncontextualized. If the ratings are included in a discussion of the prospects of the economy, that would be different because then it would be clear what the ratings, or the downgrades, mean. But, a bland statement of the rating is, imo, quite meaningless. (Also, I note that two references are not good. One is a Fitch press release and another some sort of commercial website. The Hindu refs are fine though.)--regentspark (comment) 17:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So what are you suggesting? Should we remove the ratings or should we add a sentence or two to contextualize them? I am not against removing the whole para, but it would be much better if we could replace it with equivalent content. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 17:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The credit ratings are ok in the article Economy of India. However, here, which is a highly summarized article, the individual credit ratings are too much detail I think. Well, the credit rating still itself may be notable enough just to have a mention (in one sentence maybe), but a full paragraph giving so many details is too much. Indeed, one sentence describing the public debt, budget deficit, foreign reserves, and credit rating (maybe just mentioning one agency such as S&P) may not be a very bad idea.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The proposal of representing all that information in one line sounds good. Let's leave out the credit rating altogether then, RP has already expressed reservations about them. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 17:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Independence from ?
The articles info-box reads ndependence from: United Kingdom, though it is correct that India was ruled by UK, but some parts of it were under direct control of Portugal and France, So probably we need to include those in info-box. Please advice : Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * India became an independent nation in 1947 when it got its independence from the United Kingdom. Pondicherry and Goa were later acquisitions (territorial expansion if you will) so only UK is correct. --regentspark (comment) 02:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Cinema and television
As I was reading some parts of the article today, I realized that probably it is time to include one sentence on Indian television in perhaps the Performig arts section of Culture. I do not know what that sentence would be. Consideeing the ever increasing influence of television, especially on middle class families, it may be worth mentioning. Also, if there is consensus, there could be a mention of the unique social influence and fan following of cinema and cinema stars, sometimes lifting some actors to demigod status. I think such hero-worship is pretty unque to South Asia. Of course we would need adequate references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and support the inclusion. Unfortunately, I know nothing about this topic   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indian Television should be mentioned, given the fact that India has a large number of TV users counting upto 100 million. (1). About cinema, I doubt if the demigod statement would be a nice addition, but the fact that Bollywood is the second largest film industry after Hollywood definitely needs to be written (2). Secret of success (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the original idea about including something about TV. I also agree about the inclusion of something on Bollywood. Perhaps a summary from the Bollywood article will be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoshigaki (talk • contribs) 07:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wholly welcome the change proposed. But proceed with caution and only add neutral, well-noted references. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am proposing a sentence below with references (the references will be converted to sfn when inserting in the article). Please suggest modification as necessary, especially for prose improvement. Another source (a book on popular culture) will be in my possession shortly; if needed, will add reference from that, too. And SoS, that 100 million figure is just a projection of digital TV consumers. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. My comment was more focused towards cinema rather than the television part, so no worries. Secret of success (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed sentences
After the state monopoly on television broadcast ended in 1990s, satellite television increasingly shaped the popular culture and socio-political aspects and ambition of the Indian society; television continues to be the most penetrative media in India as industry estimates indicate over 554 million TV consumers among which 462 million has satellite connection, compared to other mass media such as radio (156 million) or internet (37 million), as of 2012.

Modified sentence

Television began in India in 1959 as a state run medium of communication, and had slow expansion for more than two decades. The state monopoly on television broadcast ended in 1990s and, since then, satellite television has increasingly shaped popular culture and Indian society. Today, television is the most penetrative media in India with industry estimates indicating that there are over 554 million TV consumers, 462 million with satellite and/or cable connections, compared to other forms of mass media such as press (350 million), radio (156 million) or internet (37 million).

Please comment on the modified sentence.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Bollywood
Almost all dictionaries now have the word Bollywood to mean "the motion-picture industry in India" []. Can we replace the following sentence:
 * The Indian film industry produces the world's most-watched cinema.[276]

with:
 * Bollywood, the Indian film industry produces the world's most-watched cinema.[276]

or something similar? Hoshigaki (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indian film industry is bigger than Bollywood. (you might find this helpful) <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 08:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not pertinent to mention only the achievements of Indian cinema. 15:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Structure of the article is not at all correct
The article does not have sections on Infrastructure: Science & Technology, Education, Healthcare, Transportation, Energy. Tourism should be added as well since most of the people search countries before visiting them. For those who think that the article is complete should visit other countries' pages. This matter is far too serious than some people think it is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BharatRakshak (talk • contribs) 11:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Map template
Why was the map template shrinked? The legend in the map is now totally unreadable. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 22:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As with the official name, feel free to revert it to whatever size you want (it was 500px before and left-aligned, which crowded out text on my screen); can't speak for others here, however, who might want a different size/alignment/map/etc. Saravask 00:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Pointless Discussion: Bhārat Gaṇarājya to Bhāratiya Gaṇarājya
Per the request to discuss the change of Bhārat to Bhāratiya that was made of me here, is it okay if Bhārat is changed to Bhāratiya in the lead and infobox of the article because the Republic of India is (to my knowledge) known by the name Bhāratiya Gaṇarājya and not Bhārat Gaṇarājya, as also indicated by the Official names of India article? However that article also needs citations and I'm trying to find them.

P.S: Whatever happened to WP:BB and WP:AGF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarshAJ (talk • contribs) 02:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad for not signing the comment. -- Harsh  Mujhse baat kijiye(Talk)(Contribs) 02:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be Bharatiya as that would mean "Indian Republic" (the equivalent of Republic of India) and also the term that's commonly used both within India and outside (CIA factbook is a source). "Bharat Ganarajya" translates to "India Republic" which is incorrect. This has also been discussed in the past so it should be in the archives. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did change it to Bhartiya but was asked to discuss the change in the edit summary of the revert of the said change. So, here I am. Will change back if no dissidents are encountered in a week, if that's OKAY. -- Harsh  Mujhse baat kijiye(Talk)(Contribs) 04:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's restore your edit then—no objection from me. I suspected your edit was correct at first, but wanted to make sure that no one would offer a good reason here why a grammatically wrong name would persist at the top of the page for years after being read by millions of people, at least some of whom know Hindi, and survive intensive lead edits. As SpacemanSpiff stated, it is there in the archives, but then someone changed it back. Strange. Saravask 05:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I just checked my passport on the cover its written as "Bharat Ganarajya" not Bharatiya Ganarajya. It should be Bharat Ganarajya only.--sarvajna (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I am unable to find any good source and I also understand that Bharatiya Ganarajya makes more sense but you are wrong just check this pic. It is written as Bharat Ganarajya not Bharatiya Ganarajya --sarvajna (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting! Now going off to do intense Googling. This discrepancy on the Passport is weird. -- Harsh  Mujhse baat kijiye(Talk)(Contribs) 14:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Compare it with "Bharat Sarkar", which is used for Indian government, officially. So, I think, it's correct to use "Bhārat Gaṇarājya"  AshLey  Msg 09:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, there is no higher authority than the government documents like passport, etc. Bharat appears to be the conventional term and should be retained, even though it may not literally translate into the English equivalent. Secret of success (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Demographics section update required?
The Demographics sections states:
 * The 2001 census reported that Hinduism, with over 800 million adherents (80.5% of the population), was the largest religion in India; it is followed by Islam (13.4%), Christianity (2.3%), Sikhism (1.9%), Buddhism (0.8%), Jainism (0.4%), Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and the Bahá'í Faith.[248] India has the world's largest Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Zoroastrian, and Bahá'í populations, and has the third-largest Muslim population and the largest Muslim population for a non-Muslim majority country.

This does not include the 6.6% people who are irreligious according to a 2006 study by the Dentsu Communication Institute Inc.,a Japanese research institute.

The source is in Japanese but it is in use on Wikipedia on the article of Irreligion. If we believe this number then this could be a significant improvement to the article, putting irreligion above Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, etc. Does anyone have any other sources that corroborate this information? Hoshigaki (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello! Thanks for the input. As you noted the ref is in Japanese (or something similar) and hence i am unable to read it. But i am sure whatever you translated here is not incorrect. However, the reliablity of this source is a bit doubtful as compared to the census conducted by the Government of India. ||<span style="font-family:;font-size:;color:;background-color:;"> || {T/C} 08:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

India's Dalits better off than American blacks
The second sentence in the society section currently reads: The Indian constitution declared discrimination on the basis of caste illegal in 1950 and India has since enacted other anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives,[284] albeit numerous reports suggest that many Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and other low castes in rural areas continue to live in segregation and face persecution and discrimination.[285][286]

Can we change this to include the fact that significant progress in caste matters has been made (though there are still some problems). Several sources support that significant progress has been made in eliminating caste inequalities:


 * "No less eminent a sociologist as M. N. Srinivas has even suggested that we are 'living in a revolution'. Even if we do not accept such optimism about the recent changes (there are fields of stationary as well as transformation), the last fifty years have certainly been a time of significant change in India's social structure. There is nothing in the record of India's last half century that would vindicate the thesis of the futility of changing the hold of antecedent economic and social inequalities in India."


 * A recent analysis of government survey data by economists at the University of British Columbia found that the wage gap between other castes and Dalits has decreased to 21 percent, down from 36 percent in 1983, less than the gap between white male and black male workers in the United States. The education gap has been halved.


 * Another survey conducted by Indian researchers along with professors from the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard showed that the social status of Dalits has risen as well — they are more likely to be invited to non-Dalit weddings, to eat the same foods and wear the same clothes as upper-caste people, and use grooming products like shampoo and bottled hair oil. 


 * “Caste has no impact on life today,” Mr. Ganesan said in an interview at one of Chennai’s exclusive social clubs, the kind of place where a generation ago someone of his caste would not have been welcome. “'It is no longer a barrier.''”
 * A crucial factor is the collapse of the caste system over the last half century, a factor that undergirds many of the other reasons that the south has prospered — more stable governments, better infrastructure and a geographic position that gives it closer connections to the global economy. 

Experienced editors are invited to formulate a sentence to reflect this progress and add it near the 2nd sentence (if agreeable). Hoshigaki (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the last archive, before you dump more irrelevant stuff on this page. No one is talking about economic progress; it is the society section, remember?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS However, since the sentence was inserted before full consensus was achieved, I will defer to RegentsPark on this. I think AVC has a version too.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the sources do say Dalits are invited to non-Dalit weddings, they eat the same foods, wear the same clothes as upper caste. If you cannot agree, that is not a problem but we do have the sources. Hoshigaki (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And, there are many secondary sources that say, little progress has been made. Do you have scholarly tertiary sources that say, social progress has been achieved.  As far as I am aware, the number of arranged Brahmin-Dalit weddings in rural India (annually) can be counted on the fingers of ET's one hand.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that only Brahmin-Dalit wedding would indicate social progress ?--sarvajna (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "only," but it is an indicator. Like I said, find the tertiary sources that talk about significant social progress, especially in relation to segregation in rural India.  The last time I went to a Dalit wedding, which was not too long ago, I found their settlement, about 40 miles from Delhi, not far from a busy highway, to be entirely a Dalit enclave.  Many people had motorcycles, and the houses were all made of brick, but there were no other castes.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS This is slightly off-topic. I was struck by their enormous enterprise.  They were working in far off places; in many professions, sometimes riding 20 miles on their motorcycles to work.  But they all said that they were extremely touched, that I, an outsider, turned up.  As far as I was aware, I was the only non-Dalit guest.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what should I make of your comment to be honest I don't have enough energy to discuss things at length . You take some isolated case and call it a gospel truth, I will tell you one of my experience, I once went to a brahmin wedding in Malkhed about 700 Kms from Bangalore and 40 Kms away from the nearest town of Gulbarga, it was a bramin only wedding. Not many were not invited because the hosts could not afford to feed many people. The very next day I attended a Dalit wedding in Gulbarga, the wedding was in a grand function hall and the Cheif Minister of Karnataka was on the guest list (yes he did attend the wedding).  There are dark areas but you just cannot say that there is no progress. --sarvajna (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've scratched my comments. I wasn't citing them (and I did say, "off-topic,"), but ultimately that is why we have WP guidelines. If you have scholarly tertiary sources that talk about significant social progress, please present them. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Fowler&fowler's comments above do make us think - every time we see the wife of Barack Obama on TV, people don't say "Black man marrying black woman, so there must be no progress in race relations in the USA." Of course, there has been plenty of progress in America since the 1960s legislation about equal employment for blacks (similar to the series of legislation India enacted in 1940s and 1950s). It's only that the India has done better than America in this regard. About the all-Dalit village that Fowler cites - just like Japanese-Americans or Chinese-American or Indian-Americans, Dalits in India are not forced by law to live in isolated regions or "ghettos" but just like the various immigrant American communities, they prefer to stick together out of choice. Anyway let us wait for comments from others to see if the addition I have proposed is welcome. Clearly there has been plenty of progress and I really hope we can include this information and improve the article by keeping it up-to-date. Hoshigaki (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we've gone through this discussion and the current text accepted through consensus. Also, if I may point out the obvious, nowhere in the article does it state that India's Dalits are worse off (or better off) than specific social groups in other countries so I fail to see the point of this section title.--regentspark (comment) 17:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing he is suggesting that comparison be included in the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Further disruption
Hoshigaki, please don't be disruptive and edit war on this page. The citation is obviously not World Bank, but the Rawat book. If you had looked at the archives, you would have known. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In India actively speak 24 languages!
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The official language of the Indian subcontinent is English. It is central to national, political, and commercial communication. Another 18 officially recognized languages​​. There are 24 languages ​​spoken by at least one million people.78.2.71.64 (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Jainism and Sikhism
On what basis are Jainism and Sikhism considered "major world religions" as mentioned in the second para of the lead? As per the article Major religious groups, there are around 25 million Sikhs and 10 million Jains worldwide, which are respectively 0.35% and 0.14% of the world population. They do not appear to be major religions of the world in the presence of these statistics. Secret of success (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Even the article Major religious groups includes Sikhs and Jains among 20 or so major religions of the world. The term "major world religion" is not synonymous with 4 largest religions of the world. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 05:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Searches like this and this seriously raise doubts on that claim. Also, both the sources cited in the major religious groups article do not use the term "major world religion" or anything similar. A recognized religion is not necessarily a dominant religion. Secret of success (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a valid point. Judaism is at times included in major religions, but not Sikhism or Jainism. We can drop the term "major" from the lead instead of dropping Jainism or Sikhism, if that is what you are suggesting. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 09:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on phrasing. But dropping the word major would say something like "Four of the world's religions — Jainism, Sikhism....." which would not be appropriate because there were other religions that originated from India. I think dropping Jainism and Sikhism would be the best option at hand, and something like "Two of the worlds major religions — Hinduism and Buddhism..." sounds better. Thoughts? Secret of success (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jainism and Sikhism are documented as "world religions" in many sources. I don't think any other world religion (Donyi-Polo?) originated in India. If you can find instances of it, feel free to add it to the lead. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 07:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well. I have removed the term major from the sentence, hoping we have a consensus. Secret of success (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounded a little off. I've tweaked it to "four world religions." But perhaps RegentsPark should weigh in here. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Not different in essence, imo. --regentspark (comment) 11:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning insurgency in modern history
How about adding " insurgencies in Punjab and Northeast India" to the list of problems in the sentence starting with "Yet, India has also been weighed down by seemingly ..."? This can be added after the list-item " separatism in Jammu and Kashmir".--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the addition of insurgencies in Northeast India into the sentence, but disagree with the addition of insurgency in Punjab. Separatism in Punjab is history, let's leave it out. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 12:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment
There is a Request for comment about the utility/redundancy of Largest cities/city population templates in general. This is an open invitation for participating in the request for comment initiated on Requests for comment/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot keep changing the statement of the RfC long after people have responded to it!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST
the table shows that Manmohan singh and meira kumar are members of the Indian national congress, which is not correct. Indira Gandhi had formed a new party known as Congress (i) and all of them are members of this party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashwatpkumar (talk • contribs) 11:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically, not a new party. The party came to be known as Congress (I) after that event. The Election commission recognizes the party as Indian national congress -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 12:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Nominations of images for Economy section rotation
Nominations are invited for images in a rotation in the Economy section of the India page. Here are some ground rules (open to be discussed and changed by consensus): Nominations must be submitted below (in the form of a Wikipedia image file) by 00:00 Sunday, 7 October 2012. The images should be high resolution and in focus. Exceptions may be made for historical images. Images that illustrate important aspects of India's economy (infrastructure, industry, agriculture, trade fairs, meetings) are acceptable. You are welcome to analyze the nominations, but no voting now. Voting will begin after 10 October 2012 for a total of eight images.

A Protocol for nominating images to the Economy section of India
We are not selecting featured pictures, but we are selecting pictures for a featured article, and we should aim high.

Protocol

 * 1) All and any editors are welcome to nominate still images or short video clips (less than 90 seconds in length)
 * 2) One editor may nominate no more than 20 items. These will be considered for inclusion in two rotation templates (of 8 items each) featuring the following content from India section:
 * 3) The image already in place, File:Bombay Stock Exchange 3.jpg, will be grandfathered into the template; 7 more items will be added from:
 * 4) Tertiary sector or services, which contributes 50% to India's GDP.
 * 5) Secondary sector or Manufacturing, which contributes 24% to India's GDP.
 * 6) The image already in place, File:Ploughing with cattle in West Bengal.jpg, will be grandfathered into the template; 7 more items will be added from:
 * 7) Primary sector, (agriculture, fisheries and mining) which contributes 20% to India's GDP, but comprises 55% of its labor force.
 * 8) Economic indices: Economic growth, poverty, and nutrition.
 * 9) All still images should be of a high resolution, preferably, at least "large" sized, i.e. 1024x768 pixels or approximate equivalents. Exceptions may be made for unique historical images.  All video clips should be visually clear and noise-free.
 * 10) All still images (again excepting unique historical images) should be of a high technical standard. Tersely, this means:
 * 11) Good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral colour balance.
 * 12) No significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies. Examples of common technical problems can be found here.
 * 13) Main subject in focus, good composition and no highly distracting or obstructing elements.
 * 14) The visual content's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value. (While effects such as black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.)
 * 15) The visual content should be verifiable. It should be broadly supported by facts in the Economy section, and in turn, illustrate them.
 * 16) The visual content should not be inappropriately digitally manipulated.
 * 17) Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and limited colour/exposure correction.
 * 18) Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable.
 * 19) The image captions should strive for balance and neutrality, and, in the cogent words of user:ApostleVonColorado below, which I quote in their entirety, "Include both sides – the problems and the achievements. If image shows an informal shop/home brewing of something, the caption would be better if it includes a sentence on formal producers/industrial production. If image shows a formal producers/industrial production of something, the caption would be better if it includes a sentence on informal enterprises/home brewing if any. A good caption would not leave an impression of zero change and zero progress, or an impression of 100% change and 100% progress. And finally, the key claims in the caption would be better if they are verifiable and cited."

More coming. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Last updated. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of protocol
(Please wait until construction is complete.)

Pardon me, I couldn’t wait since I oppose this obfuscatory, mostly superfluous and exceedingly arbitrary (in all the senses of the term) “protocol”, in general. There are, however, other things also which I take issue with: Obfuscation: <ul><li>Most of us I think are responsible and aware of the fact that we "are not selecting featured pictures, but we are selecting pictures for a featured article”, but what exactly do you mean “we should aim high."?? Which exactly is high enough?? And who made that up? And "should" doesn't mean "obligated to". </ul> Autocratic restrictions: <ul><li>"One editor may nominate no more than 14 items." - I disagree with this needless arbitrary "rule". That number is arbitrary. The more variety there is, the better. Nobody is actually going to nominate any more than, say, 20 images anyway, so why this limit of 14? You can is one editor may vote for no more than 14 images.<li>Then there comes this unnecessary limit of 7 images on tertiary and secondary sectors that is actually fuelling the growth of India's economy (74% of India’s GDP). And what about infrastructure???</ul> Undue weight: <ul><LI>I also think there is a lot of undue weight (of 8 images in total) to Primary sector, (agriculture, fisheries and mining) which comprises only 20% to India's GDP. It "comprises 55% of work force" - so what? Just a statement would suffice juxtaposed with 2-3 images. <li>Furthermore, I don't like the idea of including video clips primarily because it - I think - increases the size of the page. Many, like me, have slow net connection presently.</ul> Highly vague: <ul><li>The words like "good", "significant", "broadly", etc are perilously amorphous and subjective, we ought to keep that in mind. And, although it might be preferable, it is certainly not obligatory.<li>Also, "the visual content should be verifiable." - what does it mean? This doesn't smell right. Don't raise the bar unnecessarily. <li>I don't agree with 4.3 either. "Main subject in focus, good composition and no highly distracting or obstructing elements." - "Good" is again a very vague. Why can't we just let the voters decide.<li>Change the tone of the proposed protocol, presently it seems like fiat, it should sound like recommendations. I want to see more usage of the words like "preferable", or phrases like "it would be better if".</ul> Balance: <ul><li> [before AVC's comment was quoted in its entirety] About point 8. AVC didn’t stretch it to that level. There is a big difference – I think - between “include both sides - the problems and the achievements” and “Captions should mention all scales of an economic operation.”</ul> All this needless sophistication (that I am trying to bring attention to) which, not to mention, complicates this pretty simple issue further, is not at all helpful. Why this much redundant complexity and severity that will definitely cause confusion? Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor an autocracy, mind it. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that point 8 has been mostly retuned, I don't disagree with point 8. Good job fowler on number 8. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Thanks Fowler. I think your protocol is very clear and makes a lot of sense. We need to ensure that due weight is given to various aspects of India's economy and your differing requirements for the two rotations does that very well. We also need to try to use quality images and it makes sense to formally state that. Perhaps we could up the number of images per user to 20 since Mrt3366 believes that 14 per user is too little and I'm hoping we can keep his long comments (that are unaccompanied by substantive suggestions) under control because they are becoming a distraction. Mrt3366, I tried to make sense of your post above but am puzzled. Are you suggesting that we don't ask editors to submit good images? Or that we don't care about composition and subject matter? You do realize that the images are not mere decoration but need to have encyclopedic value, don't you? --regentspark (comment) 12:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @RP Thanks.   Upped to 20.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Mrt3366, I tried to make sense of your post above but am puzzled. Are you suggesting that we don't ask editors to submit good images?" - I am saying do not make it sound like a mandate. Best quality images are preferable, yes, but it is not obligatory. Like Steve Summit stated above. The images to be nominated need not be of featured quality to be eligible for inclusion in a Featured Article, get it? Don't raise the bar redundantly high to filter out the images some of us may be inclined to exclude. Take it to WT:FA if you would like. I am saying an image may be smaller than "1024x768 pixels" and still be eligible for inclusion. If you cannot cite a guideline or policy, then do not start an arbitrary protocol. That is not how wikipedia works. Some of the bits will be more helpful if they used the phrase "preferable but not compulsory". <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mrt3366, good quality should be obligatory, not optional. There are plenty of images out there to choose from and it doesn't make sense to pick a poor quality image so asking editors to submit only good quality ones makes perfect sense. Do also note that nowhere in the protocol does it say that images need to be of featured quality (though I do hope we end up with close to featured quality pictures at the least). --regentspark (comment) 14:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Mrt3366, good quality should be obligatory, not optional" - Yes you may think so, but "good" is a subjective word. Besides, you're focusing on quality over subject, it seems. Nobody is saying we ought to pick pick "a poor quality image" when there is a better alternative of the same picture. And also, you say it should be, it is currently not obligatory. You or any other editor doesn't have the right to impose their personal sense of what should be what, on others. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is simply to highly recommend nominators choose high quality, well composed images. Nothing is summarily rejected. No one is imposing anything on you. These suggested criteria point to the level of quality editors are likely to look for. They are supposed to help nominators pick images likely to gain support among editors. I for one would be reluctant to support an image much smaller than 1024x768. You may still nominate one if you wish. Yes some of the terms are subjective ("good composition") and some arbitrary ("1024x768"). They are merely meant to guide nominators toward the level of quality expected—to make this process easier. Pfly (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Pardon me too for commenting before the protocol construction is over. The Protocol looks excellent. I would like to hear everyone's opinion about further categorization of the primary, secondary, tertiary sectors.


 * Example: Out of the 8 images for primary sector/Indices: 2 more for Agricultre (1 already existing) 1 for Forestry & fishing 1 for Mining (including Oil & Gas) 1 for Indices 2 for Miscellaneous


 * Out of the 8 for Secondary/Tertiary: 1 for Banking/Finance (already existing) 1 for Software 1 for Transportation 1 for Textile 1 for Hospitality/Healthcare 1 for Retailing 1 for Heavy industries (including Energy) 1 for Miscellaneous -- Anbu121  ( talk me ) 13:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Anb121: The energy bullet belongs to the other template since the energy comes from a manufacturing process.  Let me think more about your other points.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Anb121: Before I say anything, let me suggest that your subdivision is more appropriate for a Selection-of-Images Protocol.  When that is in place, nominators will know what they are up against, and it will be up to them to factor it in their nominations.  They might, for example, decide not to diversify, but rather to choose all their images in one area to increase their chances of getting an image selected.
 * I looked at both the Economy section of the India page and the Economy of India page. Based on your post above, and the content of the pages, I would like to suggest the following revision for the Selection-of-Images Protocol:
 * Of the 8 images for Primary sector/Indices template: 2 more for Agricultre (1 already existing) 1 for Forestry & fishing 1 for Mining (including Oil & Gas) 1 for index of Economic Growth 2 for indices of Poverty, Inequality and Nutrition


 * Of the 8 for Secondary/Tertiary template: 1 for Banking/Finance (already existing) 1 for Software/Internet Technology 1 for Transportation/Infrastucture 1 for Textile 1 for Telecommunications 1 for Retailing 1 for Heavy industries (including Energy) 1 for International and Domestic Trade


 * Let me know what you think; let the others know what they think. We will definitely need a Selection protocol; otherwise, I see nothing but both confusion and more disputes ahead.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks fine. I too proposed it only for the selection protocol. One more clarification. Shouldn't the indices images be only graphs and charts? -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 08:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, not necessarily, in my view. I prefer memorable images that leave a lasting imprint.  I prefer captions that mention a simple carry-home statistic with a link to a more detailed page, such as Economy of India or Poverty in India or Malnutrition in India, which is where the graph should be.  Graphs are not clearly visible in thumbnail format. We shouldn't assume that a reader will click on them.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I include these categorizations in the selection-protocol? Does anybody have objections to it?? -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 22:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Go ahead.  It can then be discussed there.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's images
Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)  Last updated    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

CorrectKnowledge's images
I'll improve captions later. The images can also be cropped for clarity. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 18:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Anbu121's images
--Will add detailed captions soon. Anbu121 ( talk me ) 17:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on process
Graphists at WP:GL/P can help with cropping, contrast, and other image issues, if needed—CK mentioned cropping above. Saravask 21:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is going to be rotating 8, can we have slots for individual industries? (For example, out of the 8 images for traditional economy: 2 for Agriculture, 1 for textile, 1 for forestry & fishing, 4 for others. Out of 8 images for modern economy, 1 for transportation, 1 for Energy, 1 for Manufacturing, 1 for Software, 4 for others) This is just an example, the allocation of slots can be decided on consensus or based on some GDP statistics. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 18:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * RegentsPark: I don't know if this is the place for this post, but I was thinking that there could be 8 nominations each for two rotation templates, one to replace the stock exchange picture, the other the farmer plowing picture; one for the modern sector, the other for the traditional. Last year, as you will recall, we voted for three templates in Culture and one in Demographics.  So two is really not that much.  If we are making the effort, we might as well do it right.  Having looked at a thousand plus pictures, I feel that eight alone might not be enough for India's economy.  If this is the wrong place for this post, please move it to the right one.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. We currently have two images in the economy section, so two rotations would fit in perfectly. --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I have some thoughts on a protocol for all this. Where may I make that post?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess this is the right place - you designed the system :) --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler is right. Two templates of 8 rotating images. 8 different images seemed a bit too many. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't meant 8 different images. I was also talking about the same - two templates of 8 rotating images, with slots for individual industries. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 00:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that Delhi is being given undue importance, especially in Transpor. Can we use pics of the A'bad BRTS, Hyderabad ORR, Kolkata Metro instead? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

General discussion
Kashmir is a part of india not a sepreate state yet  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.19.72.81 (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * [These comments were prior to any extensive changes that took place] I like the images of plants and factories in the above proposals. My point (I won't be making many) is if you're showing an Image of a mega-city select a part where it actually represents the core of the urbanization. Yes, if need be, we might balance that image with other image(s) but please do not deliberately select the worst-looking portion of a city and subtly push the POV that see, this is what the true face of Indian urbanization is. That is exactly the gross bias I (and others) want to rid this article of.


 * I think it's better and far more logical, especially in a summary style article like India, if the images being proposed for inclusion in the economy section, clearly reflect the cause of Economic growth (as opposed to undue and excessive focus on poverty-stricken, economically most lagging portion of the population). Images should present aspects of growth in Innovation, infrastructure and technology. Current economy section doesn't illustrate that part at all. I will try and add more later.


 * In short choose images that actually support the progress and changing structure of Indian economy and also society in general and then balance it with other images if you will. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the problem I see with some of the images proposed above, (intentional or not) misplacement of images and undue weight to contextually insignificant things. I think if you want to assert that "There are some 1.5 million potters in rural India, most of whom have no landed property" — which may or may not be best suited for economy section of a summary style article — what is the need for highlighting it with an image of a potter and his wife in Madhya Pradesh? Won't a link to the article about pottery suffice? Again if you wish to focus on Indian railways why not focus on one of the largest railway termini in India? There is far more than enough focus on the sheer rurality of India and the half-nakedness of the poor population. Why is this needless predilection? Why this maniacal focus on the gloomy-looking portions of the country/populous when there are numerous better alternatives available about the same subject/category? India is getting urbanized and westernised, this article must depict this fact along with every thing else.
 * "India is the world's second-largest producer of silk" as well as "the largest consumer" — but the one shown in the picture is half-naked....why??? "The Indian silk industry employs some 6 million workers" - seems fine? "some of whom are child labourers" - there you go, see? Why not simply state them and somehow refrain from shoehorning POVs in Image captions?? I think this is getting a bit too much. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment on captions: For balance and neutrality, I urge some care. Include both sides - the problems and the achievements. If image shows an informal shop/home brewing of something, the caption would be better if it includes a sentence on formal producers/industrial production. If image shows a formal producers/industrial production of something, the caption would be better if it includes a sentence on informal enterprises/home brewing if any. A good caption would not leave an impression of zero change and zero progress, or an impression of 100% change and 100% progress. And finally, the key claims in the caption would be better if they are verifiable and cited. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments on specific images
Can we make comments yet, or should we hold off? I have a few thoughts on some of the images (mostly things like exposure, focus, color, and so on). Pfly (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is that for India, ALL transport images except Railways is of Delhi? Why not Pune? Or Chennai, Or Ahmedabad? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

@Pfly, Sorry I didn't see your post. Yes, please make comments. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @Rsrikanth05, I have 14 images. Of these one is of Delhi.  It just happens to be the transport image.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Pfly's remarks
I was planning to comment on these nominated photos but am only just now getting around to it. I see that there has been little discussion in this section for a while and the section will be archived soon. Are people still interesting in working through it? I thought some of the previous discussions for photo rotations had fizzled—although looking at the article right now, maybe they worked out after all? Anyway, before commenting I thought I would go back and look at some of these previous discussions. In case anyone doesn't already know and is interested, they appear to be in Archive 35, which has the main part of the Demographics section discussion (the first of these discussions, I think), and Archive 36, which has the final part of the Demographics discussion and discussions for the Sports and Art sections. In these previous discussions people often commented on the nominated photos before the voting started, pointing out things they liked or didn't like—even listing the ones they liked. I think this helped the overall process along. That hasn't really happened this time, so far. There's been some talk about the photos in general and the process, but not really on specific photos. Maybe there should be. Anyway, here's some comments from me. As I said during the Demographics discussion, I don't know nearly as much about India as most of you all and feel largely unqualified to comment on the content of the photos—whether they accurately portray India, or are too weighed toward some POV, like rural vs. urban, or, in the Demographics case, whether the many peoples of India were being fairly represented. Stuff like that I can't really comment on. But I can offer an "outsider's" view, for what that is worth. Finally, I can't comment on all the photos. And I don't mean to offend anyone with words like dull or boring. I may be overly critical and terse, but am just stating my reaction, nothing personal. Phew. I'm not clear on how many are to be picked (2 sets of 8?) and don't quite follow the primary vs. secondary and tertiary thing. But having gone through what we have so far, there are 8 I like or at least find good enough. Good: FE9, FE12, CE12, ME13 (suggest crop), AE6. Acceptable: CE9, ME5, ME6. Oh, and the ones I passed over and didn't comment on are probably more or less acceptable too. Pfly (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * FE1 The photo itself doesn't excite me, but those combines are fascinating. Changed, looks fine (no time right now for more, will try to say more later!)
 * FE2 A decent photo but I don't know...you've seen one picture of people harvesting rice you've seen them all? Changed, looks fine.
 * FE3 Nice colors. Changed, looks fine.
 * FE5 Mostly out of focus. Changed, looks fine.
 * FE6 If not for the caption I would have no idea what this is a picture of. Also it has a kind of semi-random "snapshot" look. Changed, looks fine.
 * FE8 Chaotic looking, though I suppose that's part of the point. Other than the people looking Indian, this could be anywhere in the world, which might also be part of the point. Still, as a photo it feel rather generic and boring. Changed, looks fine.
 * FE9 This was was discussed a little before in relation to what part of a city to show. That issue aside, I like this one. A great jumble of infrastructure, transportation, people and market.
 * FE10 Well I'm a sucker for dams and hydropower, so this perks my interest. That road (if it is a road) zig-zagging up the dam face is interesting and strange, and the little building at the bottom has a slightly Indian look, somehow. On the other hand the colors and composition are less than wonderful. The mountain on the far side of the dam looks, photographically speaking, rather dull and unflatteringly lit. Changed, looks fine.
 * FE11 Could be the Port of Seattle! Big container ports probably all look about the same. But they do look kind of cool. The grey sky is unfortunate, and overall the picture seems a bit dull, except the front of the ship's superstructure, which looks a bit over exposed. Changed, looks fine.
 * FE12 Very nice colors and perspective. Kind of strange, but I like it.
 * FE13 As with FE8, seems generic and boring. Changed, looks fine.
 * CE1 Of the three nominations showing wind farms, this one is the best, but it still isn't a great photo. I'd suggest cropping some of the sky and perhaps the two edge turbines, but at 750x500 pixels it's already low resolution.
 * CE2 Yay another dam! But as a photo it looks pretty poor in thumbnail size. The larger size looks much better and I like it, except for the over-exposed blown color of the water. The sky too.
 * CE3 Too dark.
 * CE4 First glance at the caption made me expect to see a dam, but it's just the reservoir. Actually the subject of the photo seems to be the bridge. I think if the caption is going to say things like "world's 7th tallest dam" the picture needs to show the dam. Nice that the sky isn't grey and the colors aren't dull, but actually the colors seem over-saturated.
 * CE5 There's four nominated photos showing highways, and I don't like any of them! This one isn't awful, but it's pretty dull—in both color and composition.
 * CE6 Dull and hazy. Hard to understand at thumbnail size.
 * CE7 Dark, hazy, and blurry.
 * CE8 Could be okay, if it didn't look like it was taken out the window of a moving car. Traffic light ruins the composition.
 * CE9 I didn't like the thumbnail, but opening it up larger made it much better. The dirty cloud rising from the plant, along with the rusty stuff in the foreground and the rather wild vegetation give it a bit of a post-apocolyptic feel. On the other hand, the sky is blown.
 * CE10 Dull. I opened it up before reading the caption and find I can't tell what it's a picture of, even with the filename "International Cruise Terminal, Mumbai.JPG". Oh, a port terminal? Can't even see the water!
 * CE11 Foreground overly in shadow and some blown highlights.
 * CE12 I never get tired of pictures of terraced hills. I like it. Might be a bit over-photoshopped (saturation and sharpening, I would guess). Resolution a bit low. Still, I like it more than most so far.
 * CE13 The picture is okay. Not great but better than some. The caption is a bit odd. "As seen in the picture" shouldn't be needed. Also, the caption says I can see in the picture that the farms are small holdings less than 2 hectares. I can't see this in the picture. I see farmland, but I can't really see "holdings". For all I can tell this could be mostly one large farm.
 * CE14 Curiously weird looking photo. I like it in a kind of abstract art way. I'm not really sure what I'm looking at though. A tea estate, the caption tells me. Okay, if you say so.
 * CE15 Poor composition with no obvious subject. The aqueduct is in the background.
 * ME1 That is a distinctive bridge, but this isn't the best view of it. Mumbai's skyline is hazed out. The camera was tilted, the horizon isn't straight (tilted horizons jump out at me for some reason).
 * ME2 Looks promising as a thumbnail, but opening it up reveals what looks like awful moire patterns from bad scanning.
 * ME3 I love the angle and the structure, but I think 672x480 pixels is too small, sadly.
 * ME4 Again I like the thumbnail, but opening it up, it's only 640x480 pixels, and looks blurry at full size.
 * ME5 This one is kind of cool. It's not great, but not too bad either. Those hand sculptures are neat.
 * ME6 Interesting buildings, decent colors, composition, etc. And the sky actually has some definition! Even so, there's something meh about the picture, but it's better than many others here.
 * ME8 An old photo? Or is it? Is the subject supposed to be that toll booth in the distance? I'm confused.
 * ME9 Not bad, as a picture. Unclear what it has to do with a nearby airport or why the road needs to be pointed out.
 * ME11 640x480 pixels, and not a good photo anyway.
 * ME12 Great resolution, but sooo grey. Looks like a dust storm or something. Impossible to see the details of the wind turbines, despite the high resolution.
 * ME13 Looks good to me. Might be improved by cropping a bit, especially the foreground.
 * ME14 Eh, not awful, but less than wonderful. Blown highlights. Boring.
 * MC15 Could be a very interesting photo if not for the poor lighting on the main subject.
 * MC16 Again, could be good but for the over-exposure issues, especially on the right side. Cropping out the third platform might help, but it would make for a less interesting picture. Plus there are exposure issues on the middle platform. Too bad, this could be such a great photo.
 * AE1 This would be a pretty cool picture, if not for the blown highlights.
 * AE4 Do we want charts in an image rotation? Also, as a thumbnail this is unreadable.
 * AE5 As far as picturing of big glass buildings go, this is fine, even nice. Unclear why it is of note though.
 * AE6 Now that is interesting. I particularly like the hanging punched cards. Fascinating. I wish the man's face wasn't so much in shadow.
 * AE7 Not bad.
 * AE8 Decent subject. But low resolution (927x617), exposure and color issues.
 * PS, if there is still interest in getting this photo selection process completed, should we (can we?) bump this section to the bottom of the talk page, so it stays fresh and doesn't get archived? I'm not sure if that kind of thing is condoned or not. Pfly (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks,Pfly! Great comments, but you left out my pictures 4, 7, and 14.  Yes, we should move this down to the last section. How should that be done?  Cut and paste?    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS Since I take your remarks seriously, I will be changing a few of my images. I hope this will not cause too much confusion.  I will report here (later today) which ones have been changed.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I mostly expect to follow Pfly's "!voter guide". As he noted, all nominators have advanced at least one "wow!"-worthy image each. It can only benefit them to see how they can top themselves by replacing the sketchier ones. There is much stunning, high-res stuff on the same subjects/topics floating out there unnoticed in the Flickr/Commons ether. If enough high-enc pics show up here, then maybe the requirement to grandfather the current images could be axed—e.g., the WB farmer pic has a blown sky. Or maybe we should just do that anyway, since someone can just nom those two here. Saravask 16:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed four or five. I'm now flat out of time and will be tied up for the next few days.  Thanks for the inputs and look forward to more.  So, if we don't hear from the other nominators, the judges (which is everyone) could perhaps go ahead and vote.  Remember we have to pick 14 images, 7 for the primary sector and economic indexes; and seven for the secondary and tertiary sector. I have thus far changed 9 of my 14 pics.  A reminder, voting will begin on Saturday September 29, per RegentsPark's ground rules  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Updated.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I struck out my comments on changed pictures. The new ones look fine, although I haven't had time to check them out very closely. And yea, I did skip a few photos here and there. It just means I couldn't think of anything to say offhand. I didn't spend too long with each one or the whole process would have taken too much time. Pfly (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I wanted to point out, when I said "dull" about a photo, I meant color and contrast, not content. If the content was dull I said "boring". Just to be clear. Pfly (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 October 2012
Want to add an image of Mumbai Skyline in the Economy section of this page

Creed009 (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See and participate in the discussions above. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 October 2012
National Language of India is Hindi. Kindly correct. References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_languages_of_India Anoopmail (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not done. According to sources, there is no national language in India. Hindi and English are official languages for government business and each state has its own official language. --regentspark (comment) 20:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Society / cuisine
It looks to me like there's room for a picture there in the last paragraph. Only the mosque makes it look like rather weird society. It's not Saudi Arabia we're talking about here... Tijfo098 (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see there's a #switch there, but still there's room for two pictures. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 October 2012
STATE NAME AND NUMBER ARE WRONG. PLZ EDIT IT

119.235.55.14 (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Numbers changed to 28. Thanks for noticing. But i do not see any mistake in names. Please be more specific about that. §§<span style="font-family:;font-size:;color:;background-color:;"> §§ {T/C} 10:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Huge clickable map in Subdivisions section
Is that a new addition or something? It's probably five times the recommended size for thumbnails. It might as well be centered with no text flowing around. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the map should either be centered at the current size or else shrunk if it kept in the current non-centered alignment. I shrunk and centered it a while back, but someone (Anbu?) disagreed, so it returned to the current state, which looks bad IMO. Saravask 18:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with center or left or right alignment. In the shrunk image, the legend of the map was totally unreadable. Unlike normal images, which on clicking gives a large format, clicking on the map will not give you an enlarged version. Hence, the shrunk image violates accessibility guidelines. Please feel free to change the center/left/right alignment. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 18:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Selection of images for the Economy section rotations
Reminder: As User:RegentsPark has stated in the nominations section, voting for selecting the images will begin at 00:00 29 September 2012 (UTC). He will have more to say below. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Voting and Selection Protocol

 * 1) All and any editors are welcome to vote for the selection of images.
 * 2) After the nomination period ends all the images will be classified into the following categories: Agriculture, Forestry & fishing, Mining(including Oil & Gas), Index of Economic Growth, Indices of Poverty, Inequality and Nutrition, Software/Internet Technology, Transportation/Infrastucture, Textile, Telecommunications, Retailing, Heavy industries (including Energy), International and Domestic Trade, Banking/Finance.
 * 3) A voter is entitled to vote for a maximum of 16 images: 3 votes for Agriculture, 2 votes for Poverty-Inequality-Nutrition, and 1 vote for each of the remaining 11 categories.
 * 4) The image with highest number of votes in each category will be selected for the template. (Three highest scoring images from Agriculture category; two highest scoring from Poverty-Inequality-Nutrition and the top scoring image of each of the remaining category.)

Discussion on the Protocol
Have I missed anything? -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 20:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well written. Concise and succinct.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Anbu121, Saravask has written somewhere upstairs that the images currently in place in the Economy section could perhaps be replaced as well (or at least compete with newer nominations). The reason for this is that while they were OK by last years standards, they aren't by this year's!  Both have bleached skies for one.  I found two pics on Flickr, which I have nominated as FE15 and 16.  Could you alter the wording of the selection protocol, so that this is also factored in? Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 14:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have classified most of the images for voting. I am not sure where to put FE1, CE11, CE15, ME1. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 18:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing this! FE1 is definitely agriculture.  Milk is now the highest grossing "crop."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Categorization of Images
Agriculture(including milk): FE1, FE15, CE12, CE13, CE14, ME9, AE1, EE2, CE11

Forestry & fishing: FE2, FE4, AE3

Mining(including Oil & Gas): FE3, CE6, MC16

Index of Economic Growth: FE6, AE4

Indices of Poverty, Inequality and Nutrition: FE5, FE7, AE2

Banking/Finance: FE16, ME1, EE1

Software/Internet Technology: FE14, ME6, AE5

Transportation/Infrastucture: FE9, CE2, CE5, CE10, ME3, ME5, ME7, ME8, ME10, AE8, CE15

Textile: FE12, AE6

Telecommunications: FE13, ME14, AE9

Retailing: FE8, AE7

Heavy industries (including Energy): FE10, CE1, CE3, CE4, CE7, CE8, CE9, ME2, ME11, ME12, ME13, MC15

International and Domestic Trade: FE11, ME4

Voting
Voting on the images to be included has begun and will end on 15 November 2012. Add your votes in the table below. Maximum 3 images in Agriculture, 2 in Poverty-inequality-nutrition, and 1 in each of the other sections. Votes will be tallied after 15 November. --regentspark (comment) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Tijfo098's notes: -- Tijfo098 (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * FE15/CE13: both illustrate important points; I suppose FE15 implies CE13 in a way, but the converse also holds. Small plots and lack of mechanization often go hand in hand in subsistence farming. But in some former socialist countries some people still have small plots but pay for some mechanized services. So slight preference for FE15 here.
 * Banking has very little text, so it doesn't seem to deserve a picture.
 * Caption for ME6 needs changes. The HQ of most other big India IT players will do as well.
 * Is there no good picture of Indian railways? Still highly relevant.
 * Are there no prettier middle class places in an Indian city than FE6? I hear these sprung up around the IT areas. Something like AE8 but without the highway taking center-stage. Skyline at Rajiv Chowk.JPG
 * AE7/FE8 - both are good, the captions could be combined. Slight preference for AE7 because FE8 looks more like a trinket shop for tourists.
 * FE12/AE6 are both good. FE12 is pretty, but AE6 slightly more representative/informative.
 * ME13/CE9: CE9 is slightly more representative, but the thumbnail is rather ugly...
 * Is there really no good pic of an Indian port?

About middle class & growth pic. What about the one on the right? It's a better pic of FE6 Connaught Place, for the purposes of showing growth IMO. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the one on the right is better than mine (FE6). Thanks!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Banking is already there in the Economy section; so, it certainly needs an image, but you are right, the caption needs work. We had railways earlier, but it didn't seem to fit into any category.  It is a large employer, a large state enterprise, but one fraught with many problems.  Yeah, you are probably right about FE8, but I don't know about trinkets, I'm guessing some of those items are pretty expensive.  Yeah, couldn't find a good clear picture of a port.  I did have one of the Mumbai dock earlier, but the picture was taken on a cloudy day, so I replaced it. Overall, though, I guess, after having set aside more than 1 month for nominating images, I now wouldn't want to start nominating new ones (en mass).  We should probably vote and get done with this, leaving further changes to next year.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Pfly's notes: Also, I haven't thought much about the captions. Perhaps some could be improved, I'm not quite sure. Pfly (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * AE6 (FE12*): These two are among my favorites out of all the pictures, and I wish they could both be used!
 * nil*: I don't really like any of the choices much, but if I had to pick one I suppose it would be FE13, but really it looks like a picture of laundry (upon closer examination, prayer flags); the cell tower is background...
 * FE8 (AE7*): I can't really decide between these. I like the people in AE7 more, but the stuff in FE8 more. I guess I've put FE8 first, but if it matters I'm fine either way.

Saravask's note:
 * FE6 (TE1*): I too prefer File:Skyline_at_Rajiv_Chowk.JPG over FE6. Voting for FE6 only because I'm not too keen on seeing AE4 get selected. Saravask 18:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Political Sub-Divisions and associated map
I thought I should point out to someone with editing abilities that the union territories list labels them 1, 2, 3, etc, but the map labels them A, B, C etc. I would suggest that since the states are listed by number, and to be consistent with the map, the union territories should be changed to letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psion20 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 23:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Nominations of images for Economy section rotation
Nominations are invited for images in a rotation in the Economy section of the India page. Here are some ground rules (open to be discussed and changed by consensus): Nominations must be submitted below (in the form of a Wikipedia image file) by 00:00 Sunday, 7 October 2012. The images should be high resolution and in focus. Exceptions may be made for historical images. Images that illustrate important aspects of India's economy (infrastructure, industry, agriculture, trade fairs, meetings) are acceptable. You are welcome to analyze the nominations, but no voting now. Voting will begin after 10 October 2012 for a total of eight images.

A Protocol for nominating images to the Economy section of India
We are not selecting featured pictures, but we are selecting pictures for a featured article, and we should aim high.

Protocol

 * 1) All and any editors are welcome to nominate still images or short video clips (less than 90 seconds in length)
 * 2) One editor may nominate no more than 20 items. These will be considered for inclusion in two rotation templates (of 8 items each) featuring the following content from India section:
 * 3) The image already in place, File:Bombay Stock Exchange 3.jpg, will be grandfathered into the template; 7 more items will be added from:
 * 4) Tertiary sector or services, which contributes 50% to India's GDP.
 * 5) Secondary sector or Manufacturing, which contributes 24% to India's GDP.
 * 6) The image already in place, File:Ploughing with cattle in West Bengal.jpg, will be grandfathered into the template; 7 more items will be added from:
 * 7) Primary sector, (agriculture, fisheries and mining) which contributes 20% to India's GDP, but comprises 55% of its labor force.
 * 8) Economic indices: Economic growth, poverty, and nutrition.
 * 9) All still images should be of a high resolution, preferably, at least "large" sized, i.e. 1024x768 pixels or approximate equivalents. Exceptions may be made for unique historical images.  All video clips should be visually clear and noise-free.
 * 10) All still images (again excepting unique historical images) should be of a high technical standard. Tersely, this means:
 * 11) Good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral colour balance.
 * 12) No significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies. Examples of common technical problems can be found here.
 * 13) Main subject in focus, good composition and no highly distracting or obstructing elements.
 * 14) The visual content's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value. (While effects such as black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.)
 * 15) The visual content should be verifiable. It should be broadly supported by facts in the Economy section, and in turn, illustrate them.
 * 16) The visual content should not be inappropriately digitally manipulated.
 * 17) Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and limited colour/exposure correction.
 * 18) Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable.
 * 19) The image captions should strive for balance and neutrality, and, in the cogent words of user:ApostleVonColorado below, which I quote in their entirety, "Include both sides – the problems and the achievements. If image shows an informal shop/home brewing of something, the caption would be better if it includes a sentence on formal producers/industrial production. If image shows a formal producers/industrial production of something, the caption would be better if it includes a sentence on informal enterprises/home brewing if any. A good caption would not leave an impression of zero change and zero progress, or an impression of 100% change and 100% progress. And finally, the key claims in the caption would be better if they are verifiable and cited."

More coming. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Last updated. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of protocol
(Please wait until construction is complete.)

Pardon me, I couldn’t wait since I oppose this obfuscatory, mostly superfluous and exceedingly arbitrary (in all the senses of the term) “protocol”, in general. There are, however, other things also which I take issue with: Obfuscation: <ul><li>Most of us I think are responsible and aware of the fact that we "are not selecting featured pictures, but we are selecting pictures for a featured article”, but what exactly do you mean “we should aim high."?? Which exactly is high enough?? And who made that up? And "should" doesn't mean "obligated to". </ul> Autocratic restrictions: <ul><li>"One editor may nominate no more than 14 items." - I disagree with this needless arbitrary "rule". That number is arbitrary. The more variety there is, the better. Nobody is actually going to nominate any more than, say, 20 images anyway, so why this limit of 14? You can is one editor may vote for no more than 14 images.<li>Then there comes this unnecessary limit of 7 images on tertiary and secondary sectors that is actually fuelling the growth of India's economy (74% of India’s GDP). And what about infrastructure???</ul> Undue weight: <ul><LI>I also think there is a lot of undue weight (of 8 images in total) to Primary sector, (agriculture, fisheries and mining) which comprises only 20% to India's GDP. It "comprises 55% of work force" - so what? Just a statement would suffice juxtaposed with 2-3 images. <li>Furthermore, I don't like the idea of including video clips primarily because it - I think - increases the size of the page. Many, like me, have slow net connection presently.</ul> Highly vague: <ul><li>The words like "good", "significant", "broadly", etc are perilously amorphous and subjective, we ought to keep that in mind. And, although it might be preferable, it is certainly not obligatory.<li>Also, "the visual content should be verifiable." - what does it mean? This doesn't smell right. Don't raise the bar unnecessarily. <li>I don't agree with 4.3 either. "Main subject in focus, good composition and no highly distracting or obstructing elements." - "Good" is again a very vague. Why can't we just let the voters decide.<li>Change the tone of the proposed protocol, presently it seems like fiat, it should sound like recommendations. I want to see more usage of the words like "preferable", or phrases like "it would be better if".</ul> Balance: <ul><li> [before AVC's comment was quoted in its entirety] About point 8. AVC didn’t stretch it to that level. There is a big difference – I think - between “include both sides - the problems and the achievements” and “Captions should mention all scales of an economic operation.”</ul> All this needless sophistication (that I am trying to bring attention to) which, not to mention, complicates this pretty simple issue further, is not at all helpful. Why this much redundant complexity and severity that will definitely cause confusion? Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor an autocracy, mind it. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that point 8 has been mostly retuned, I don't disagree with point 8. Good job fowler on number 8. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Thanks Fowler. I think your protocol is very clear and makes a lot of sense. We need to ensure that due weight is given to various aspects of India's economy and your differing requirements for the two rotations does that very well. We also need to try to use quality images and it makes sense to formally state that. Perhaps we could up the number of images per user to 20 since Mrt3366 believes that 14 per user is too little and I'm hoping we can keep his long comments (that are unaccompanied by substantive suggestions) under control because they are becoming a distraction. Mrt3366, I tried to make sense of your post above but am puzzled. Are you suggesting that we don't ask editors to submit good images? Or that we don't care about composition and subject matter? You do realize that the images are not mere decoration but need to have encyclopedic value, don't you? --regentspark (comment) 12:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @RP Thanks.   Upped to 20.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Mrt3366, I tried to make sense of your post above but am puzzled. Are you suggesting that we don't ask editors to submit good images?" - I am saying do not make it sound like a mandate. Best quality images are preferable, yes, but it is not obligatory. Like Steve Summit stated above. The images to be nominated need not be of featured quality to be eligible for inclusion in a Featured Article, get it? Don't raise the bar redundantly high to filter out the images some of us may be inclined to exclude. Take it to WT:FA if you would like. I am saying an image may be smaller than "1024x768 pixels" and still be eligible for inclusion. If you cannot cite a guideline or policy, then do not start an arbitrary protocol. That is not how wikipedia works. Some of the bits will be more helpful if they used the phrase "preferable but not compulsory". <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mrt3366, good quality should be obligatory, not optional. There are plenty of images out there to choose from and it doesn't make sense to pick a poor quality image so asking editors to submit only good quality ones makes perfect sense. Do also note that nowhere in the protocol does it say that images need to be of featured quality (though I do hope we end up with close to featured quality pictures at the least). --regentspark (comment) 14:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Mrt3366, good quality should be obligatory, not optional" - Yes you may think so, but "good" is a subjective word. Besides, you're focusing on quality over subject, it seems. Nobody is saying we ought to pick pick "a poor quality image" when there is a better alternative of the same picture. And also, you say it should be, it is currently not obligatory. You or any other editor doesn't have the right to impose their personal sense of what should be what, on others. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is simply to highly recommend nominators choose high quality, well composed images. Nothing is summarily rejected. No one is imposing anything on you. These suggested criteria point to the level of quality editors are likely to look for. They are supposed to help nominators pick images likely to gain support among editors. I for one would be reluctant to support an image much smaller than 1024x768. You may still nominate one if you wish. Yes some of the terms are subjective ("good composition") and some arbitrary ("1024x768"). They are merely meant to guide nominators toward the level of quality expected—to make this process easier. Pfly (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Pardon me too for commenting before the protocol construction is over. The Protocol looks excellent. I would like to hear everyone's opinion about further categorization of the primary, secondary, tertiary sectors.


 * Example: Out of the 8 images for primary sector/Indices: 2 more for Agricultre (1 already existing) 1 for Forestry & fishing 1 for Mining (including Oil & Gas) 1 for Indices 2 for Miscellaneous


 * Out of the 8 for Secondary/Tertiary: 1 for Banking/Finance (already existing) 1 for Software 1 for Transportation 1 for Textile 1 for Hospitality/Healthcare 1 for Retailing 1 for Heavy industries (including Energy) 1 for Miscellaneous -- Anbu121  ( talk me ) 13:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Anb121: The energy bullet belongs to the other template since the energy comes from a manufacturing process.  Let me think more about your other points.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Anb121: Before I say anything, let me suggest that your subdivision is more appropriate for a Selection-of-Images Protocol.  When that is in place, nominators will know what they are up against, and it will be up to them to factor it in their nominations.  They might, for example, decide not to diversify, but rather to choose all their images in one area to increase their chances of getting an image selected.
 * I looked at both the Economy section of the India page and the Economy of India page. Based on your post above, and the content of the pages, I would like to suggest the following revision for the Selection-of-Images Protocol:
 * Of the 8 images for Primary sector/Indices template: 2 more for Agricultre (1 already existing) 1 for Forestry & fishing 1 for Mining (including Oil & Gas) 1 for index of Economic Growth 2 for indices of Poverty, Inequality and Nutrition


 * Of the 8 for Secondary/Tertiary template: 1 for Banking/Finance (already existing) 1 for Software/Internet Technology 1 for Transportation/Infrastucture 1 for Textile 1 for Telecommunications 1 for Retailing 1 for Heavy industries (including Energy) 1 for International and Domestic Trade


 * Let me know what you think; let the others know what they think. We will definitely need a Selection protocol; otherwise, I see nothing but both confusion and more disputes ahead.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks fine. I too proposed it only for the selection protocol. One more clarification. Shouldn't the indices images be only graphs and charts? -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 08:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, not necessarily, in my view. I prefer memorable images that leave a lasting imprint.  I prefer captions that mention a simple carry-home statistic with a link to a more detailed page, such as Economy of India or Poverty in India or Malnutrition in India, which is where the graph should be.  Graphs are not clearly visible in thumbnail format. We shouldn't assume that a reader will click on them.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I include these categorizations in the selection-protocol? Does anybody have objections to it?? -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 22:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Go ahead.  It can then be discussed there.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's images
Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)  Last updated    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

CorrectKnowledge's images
I'll improve captions later. The images can also be cropped for clarity. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 18:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Anbu121's images
--Will add detailed captions soon. Anbu121 ( talk me ) 17:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on process
Graphists at WP:GL/P can help with cropping, contrast, and other image issues, if needed—CK mentioned cropping above. Saravask 21:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is going to be rotating 8, can we have slots for individual industries? (For example, out of the 8 images for traditional economy: 2 for Agriculture, 1 for textile, 1 for forestry & fishing, 4 for others. Out of 8 images for modern economy, 1 for transportation, 1 for Energy, 1 for Manufacturing, 1 for Software, 4 for others) This is just an example, the allocation of slots can be decided on consensus or based on some GDP statistics. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 18:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * RegentsPark: I don't know if this is the place for this post, but I was thinking that there could be 8 nominations each for two rotation templates, one to replace the stock exchange picture, the other the farmer plowing picture; one for the modern sector, the other for the traditional. Last year, as you will recall, we voted for three templates in Culture and one in Demographics.  So two is really not that much.  If we are making the effort, we might as well do it right.  Having looked at a thousand plus pictures, I feel that eight alone might not be enough for India's economy.  If this is the wrong place for this post, please move it to the right one.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. We currently have two images in the economy section, so two rotations would fit in perfectly. --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I have some thoughts on a protocol for all this. Where may I make that post?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess this is the right place - you designed the system :) --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler is right. Two templates of 8 rotating images. 8 different images seemed a bit too many. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't meant 8 different images. I was also talking about the same - two templates of 8 rotating images, with slots for individual industries. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 00:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that Delhi is being given undue importance, especially in Transpor. Can we use pics of the A'bad BRTS, Hyderabad ORR, Kolkata Metro instead? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

General discussion
Kashmir is a part of india not a sepreate state yet  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.19.72.81 (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * [These comments were prior to any extensive changes that took place] I like the images of plants and factories in the above proposals. My point (I won't be making many) is if you're showing an Image of a mega-city select a part where it actually represents the core of the urbanization. Yes, if need be, we might balance that image with other image(s) but please do not deliberately select the worst-looking portion of a city and subtly push the POV that see, this is what the true face of Indian urbanization is. That is exactly the gross bias I (and others) want to rid this article of.


 * I think it's better and far more logical, especially in a summary style article like India, if the images being proposed for inclusion in the economy section, clearly reflect the cause of Economic growth (as opposed to undue and excessive focus on poverty-stricken, economically most lagging portion of the population). Images should present aspects of growth in Innovation, infrastructure and technology. Current economy section doesn't illustrate that part at all. I will try and add more later.


 * In short choose images that actually support the progress and changing structure of Indian economy and also society in general and then balance it with other images if you will. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the problem I see with some of the images proposed above, (intentional or not) misplacement of images and undue weight to contextually insignificant things. I think if you want to assert that "There are some 1.5 million potters in rural India, most of whom have no landed property" — which may or may not be best suited for economy section of a summary style article — what is the need for highlighting it with an image of a potter and his wife in Madhya Pradesh? Won't a link to the article about pottery suffice? Again if you wish to focus on Indian railways why not focus on one of the largest railway termini in India? There is far more than enough focus on the sheer rurality of India and the half-nakedness of the poor population. Why is this needless predilection? Why this maniacal focus on the gloomy-looking portions of the country/populous when there are numerous better alternatives available about the same subject/category? India is getting urbanized and westernised, this article must depict this fact along with every thing else.
 * "India is the world's second-largest producer of silk" as well as "the largest consumer" — but the one shown in the picture is half-naked....why??? "The Indian silk industry employs some 6 million workers" - seems fine? "some of whom are child labourers" - there you go, see? Why not simply state them and somehow refrain from shoehorning POVs in Image captions?? I think this is getting a bit too much. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment on captions: For balance and neutrality, I urge some care. Include both sides - the problems and the achievements. If image shows an informal shop/home brewing of something, the caption would be better if it includes a sentence on formal producers/industrial production. If image shows a formal producers/industrial production of something, the caption would be better if it includes a sentence on informal enterprises/home brewing if any. A good caption would not leave an impression of zero change and zero progress, or an impression of 100% change and 100% progress. And finally, the key claims in the caption would be better if they are verifiable and cited. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments on specific images
Can we make comments yet, or should we hold off? I have a few thoughts on some of the images (mostly things like exposure, focus, color, and so on). Pfly (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is that for India, ALL transport images except Railways is of Delhi? Why not Pune? Or Chennai, Or Ahmedabad? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

@Pfly, Sorry I didn't see your post. Yes, please make comments. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @Rsrikanth05, I have 14 images. Of these one is of Delhi.  It just happens to be the transport image.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Pfly's remarks
I was planning to comment on these nominated photos but am only just now getting around to it. I see that there has been little discussion in this section for a while and the section will be archived soon. Are people still interesting in working through it? I thought some of the previous discussions for photo rotations had fizzled—although looking at the article right now, maybe they worked out after all? Anyway, before commenting I thought I would go back and look at some of these previous discussions. In case anyone doesn't already know and is interested, they appear to be in Archive 35, which has the main part of the Demographics section discussion (the first of these discussions, I think), and Archive 36, which has the final part of the Demographics discussion and discussions for the Sports and Art sections. In these previous discussions people often commented on the nominated photos before the voting started, pointing out things they liked or didn't like—even listing the ones they liked. I think this helped the overall process along. That hasn't really happened this time, so far. There's been some talk about the photos in general and the process, but not really on specific photos. Maybe there should be. Anyway, here's some comments from me. As I said during the Demographics discussion, I don't know nearly as much about India as most of you all and feel largely unqualified to comment on the content of the photos—whether they accurately portray India, or are too weighed toward some POV, like rural vs. urban, or, in the Demographics case, whether the many peoples of India were being fairly represented. Stuff like that I can't really comment on. But I can offer an "outsider's" view, for what that is worth. Finally, I can't comment on all the photos. And I don't mean to offend anyone with words like dull or boring. I may be overly critical and terse, but am just stating my reaction, nothing personal. Phew. I'm not clear on how many are to be picked (2 sets of 8?) and don't quite follow the primary vs. secondary and tertiary thing. But having gone through what we have so far, there are 8 I like or at least find good enough. Good: FE9, FE12, CE12, ME13 (suggest crop), AE6. Acceptable: CE9, ME5, ME6. Oh, and the ones I passed over and didn't comment on are probably more or less acceptable too. Pfly (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * FE1 The photo itself doesn't excite me, but those combines are fascinating. Changed, looks fine (no time right now for more, will try to say more later!)
 * FE2 A decent photo but I don't know...you've seen one picture of people harvesting rice you've seen them all? Changed, looks fine.
 * FE3 Nice colors. Changed, looks fine.
 * FE5 Mostly out of focus. Changed, looks fine.
 * FE6 If not for the caption I would have no idea what this is a picture of. Also it has a kind of semi-random "snapshot" look. Changed, looks fine.
 * FE8 Chaotic looking, though I suppose that's part of the point. Other than the people looking Indian, this could be anywhere in the world, which might also be part of the point. Still, as a photo it feel rather generic and boring. Changed, looks fine.
 * FE9 This was was discussed a little before in relation to what part of a city to show. That issue aside, I like this one. A great jumble of infrastructure, transportation, people and market.
 * FE10 Well I'm a sucker for dams and hydropower, so this perks my interest. That road (if it is a road) zig-zagging up the dam face is interesting and strange, and the little building at the bottom has a slightly Indian look, somehow. On the other hand the colors and composition are less than wonderful. The mountain on the far side of the dam looks, photographically speaking, rather dull and unflatteringly lit. Changed, looks fine.
 * FE11 Could be the Port of Seattle! Big container ports probably all look about the same. But they do look kind of cool. The grey sky is unfortunate, and overall the picture seems a bit dull, except the front of the ship's superstructure, which looks a bit over exposed. Changed, looks fine.
 * FE12 Very nice colors and perspective. Kind of strange, but I like it.
 * FE13 As with FE8, seems generic and boring. Changed, looks fine.
 * CE1 Of the three nominations showing wind farms, this one is the best, but it still isn't a great photo. I'd suggest cropping some of the sky and perhaps the two edge turbines, but at 750x500 pixels it's already low resolution.
 * CE2 Yay another dam! But as a photo it looks pretty poor in thumbnail size. The larger size looks much better and I like it, except for the over-exposed blown color of the water. The sky too.
 * CE3 Too dark.
 * CE4 First glance at the caption made me expect to see a dam, but it's just the reservoir. Actually the subject of the photo seems to be the bridge. I think if the caption is going to say things like "world's 7th tallest dam" the picture needs to show the dam. Nice that the sky isn't grey and the colors aren't dull, but actually the colors seem over-saturated.
 * CE5 There's four nominated photos showing highways, and I don't like any of them! This one isn't awful, but it's pretty dull—in both color and composition.
 * CE6 Dull and hazy. Hard to understand at thumbnail size.
 * CE7 Dark, hazy, and blurry.
 * CE8 Could be okay, if it didn't look like it was taken out the window of a moving car. Traffic light ruins the composition.
 * CE9 I didn't like the thumbnail, but opening it up larger made it much better. The dirty cloud rising from the plant, along with the rusty stuff in the foreground and the rather wild vegetation give it a bit of a post-apocolyptic feel. On the other hand, the sky is blown.
 * CE10 Dull. I opened it up before reading the caption and find I can't tell what it's a picture of, even with the filename "International Cruise Terminal, Mumbai.JPG". Oh, a port terminal? Can't even see the water!
 * CE11 Foreground overly in shadow and some blown highlights.
 * CE12 I never get tired of pictures of terraced hills. I like it. Might be a bit over-photoshopped (saturation and sharpening, I would guess). Resolution a bit low. Still, I like it more than most so far.
 * CE13 The picture is okay. Not great but better than some. The caption is a bit odd. "As seen in the picture" shouldn't be needed. Also, the caption says I can see in the picture that the farms are small holdings less than 2 hectares. I can't see this in the picture. I see farmland, but I can't really see "holdings". For all I can tell this could be mostly one large farm.
 * CE14 Curiously weird looking photo. I like it in a kind of abstract art way. I'm not really sure what I'm looking at though. A tea estate, the caption tells me. Okay, if you say so.
 * CE15 Poor composition with no obvious subject. The aqueduct is in the background.
 * ME1 That is a distinctive bridge, but this isn't the best view of it. Mumbai's skyline is hazed out. The camera was tilted, the horizon isn't straight (tilted horizons jump out at me for some reason).
 * ME2 Looks promising as a thumbnail, but opening it up reveals what looks like awful moire patterns from bad scanning.
 * ME3 I love the angle and the structure, but I think 672x480 pixels is too small, sadly.
 * ME4 Again I like the thumbnail, but opening it up, it's only 640x480 pixels, and looks blurry at full size.
 * ME5 This one is kind of cool. It's not great, but not too bad either. Those hand sculptures are neat.
 * ME6 Interesting buildings, decent colors, composition, etc. And the sky actually has some definition! Even so, there's something meh about the picture, but it's better than many others here.
 * ME8 An old photo? Or is it? Is the subject supposed to be that toll booth in the distance? I'm confused.
 * ME9 Not bad, as a picture. Unclear what it has to do with a nearby airport or why the road needs to be pointed out.
 * ME11 640x480 pixels, and not a good photo anyway.
 * ME12 Great resolution, but sooo grey. Looks like a dust storm or something. Impossible to see the details of the wind turbines, despite the high resolution.
 * ME13 Looks good to me. Might be improved by cropping a bit, especially the foreground.
 * ME14 Eh, not awful, but less than wonderful. Blown highlights. Boring.
 * MC15 Could be a very interesting photo if not for the poor lighting on the main subject.
 * MC16 Again, could be good but for the over-exposure issues, especially on the right side. Cropping out the third platform might help, but it would make for a less interesting picture. Plus there are exposure issues on the middle platform. Too bad, this could be such a great photo.
 * AE1 This would be a pretty cool picture, if not for the blown highlights.
 * AE4 Do we want charts in an image rotation? Also, as a thumbnail this is unreadable.
 * AE5 As far as picturing of big glass buildings go, this is fine, even nice. Unclear why it is of note though.
 * AE6 Now that is interesting. I particularly like the hanging punched cards. Fascinating. I wish the man's face wasn't so much in shadow.
 * AE7 Not bad.
 * AE8 Decent subject. But low resolution (927x617), exposure and color issues.
 * PS, if there is still interest in getting this photo selection process completed, should we (can we?) bump this section to the bottom of the talk page, so it stays fresh and doesn't get archived? I'm not sure if that kind of thing is condoned or not. Pfly (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks,Pfly! Great comments, but you left out my pictures 4, 7, and 14.  Yes, we should move this down to the last section. How should that be done?  Cut and paste?    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS Since I take your remarks seriously, I will be changing a few of my images. I hope this will not cause too much confusion.  I will report here (later today) which ones have been changed.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I mostly expect to follow Pfly's "!voter guide". As he noted, all nominators have advanced at least one "wow!"-worthy image each. It can only benefit them to see how they can top themselves by replacing the sketchier ones. There is much stunning, high-res stuff on the same subjects/topics floating out there unnoticed in the Flickr/Commons ether. If enough high-enc pics show up here, then maybe the requirement to grandfather the current images could be axed—e.g., the WB farmer pic has a blown sky. Or maybe we should just do that anyway, since someone can just nom those two here. Saravask 16:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed four or five. I'm now flat out of time and will be tied up for the next few days.  Thanks for the inputs and look forward to more.  So, if we don't hear from the other nominators, the judges (which is everyone) could perhaps go ahead and vote.  Remember we have to pick 14 images, 7 for the primary sector and economic indexes; and seven for the secondary and tertiary sector. I have thus far changed 9 of my 14 pics.  A reminder, voting will begin on Saturday September 29, per RegentsPark's ground rules  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Updated.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I struck out my comments on changed pictures. The new ones look fine, although I haven't had time to check them out very closely. And yea, I did skip a few photos here and there. It just means I couldn't think of anything to say offhand. I didn't spend too long with each one or the whole process would have taken too much time. Pfly (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I wanted to point out, when I said "dull" about a photo, I meant color and contrast, not content. If the content was dull I said "boring". Just to be clear. Pfly (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2012
Dear Sir,

About INDIA GDP Ration not in the place of 10 now  4 th place List by the International Monetary Fund (2011), 3 rd place List by the CIA World Factbook (1993–2011)

ANASwiki (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been clearly mentioned as 3rd place by GDP(Purchasing Power) and 10th place by GDP(nominal). - Anbu121 ( talk me ) 04:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nominations of images for the cities template
'''Since there is some question as to whether the template is useful at all, this selection process is currently on hold. The relevant discussion is on WP:DRN.''' --regentspark (comment) 16:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nominations are invited for inclusion in the "largest urban agglomerations" template which is likely to contain two images, possibly rotating so don't limit your proposals. Nominations must be submitted below (in the form of a Wikipedia image file) by 00:00 Saturday, 01 October 2012. The images should be high resolution and in focus and should be recent images of India's cities rather than historical ones. You are welcome to analyze the nominations, but no voting now. Voting will begin after 01 October 2012. The exact number of images selected will be decided based on the discussion in the subsection "Discussion on format and number of images" below.

Discussion on format and number of images

 * Rotating 8--regentspark (comment) 14:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rotating 8-- 4 in each slot. There will be two slots, right? <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 15:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rotating 8, one each for top 8 cities. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 16:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments on specific images

 * MC7: Why "dying" high-rises? --regentspark (comment) 14:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the high rises are old and because problems with Connaught Place have been a target of recent media campaign. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 14:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting (though the articles linked are not about high rise buildings). Doesn't exactly fit with that missing "Modern India" perspective being lamented about! :) --regentspark (comment) 14:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * MC7 or MC5? MC7 is Victoria memorial hall. You numbered them, didn't you? ;) BTW, I am in search of a proper caption, but then I thought since it can only be going into a template, captions don't really matter. But any help will be appreciated. Suggest captions if you wish. Still I'd say it's more representative of "modern India" or modernization process in general, than most of the images currently in the article. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 15:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on process
Should this section be moved to the template's talk page? -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 18:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 18:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should leave it here. The only purpose of the template is to transclude on the India page, the images will be visible on the India page, for reasons of inclusiveness, this is the right place for the discussion. I've left a note on the template talk page for the unlikely event that someone who visits that talk page doesn't also visit this one. --regentspark (comment) 19:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Leaving it here would be best idea. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Having finally read the long, now closed discussion at DRN (and the shorter one at RfC), it seems to me this section, "Nominations of images for the cities template", is dead in the water. Perhaps it should be closed/collapsed, to make this talk page easier to read (it's currently quite busy). Maybe some of the images could be added to the "Nominations of images for Economy section rotation" discussion, if any are appropriate (although I see there are already some city/urban images there). Perhaps they could be saved for a future discussion on another section, like "Demographics", where the text mentions India's large cities. It is a short section though, without much if any space for additional images. Anyway, just a proposal to close/collapse this section. I wanted to catch up here but got sidetracked into reading the DRN, which ate up all the time I had. Looked clear after reading that the DRN resulted in no consensus and no agreement on any compromise. As the DRN is closed now can we close this section? Pfly (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea, Pfly.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "it seems to me this section, "Nominations of images for the cities template", is dead in the water" - it could be collapsed (to save space and owing to the fact that its on hold) but not closed because let us wait till the RFC finishes. Fowler is free to think whatever he might. But there is an RFC and still way too early to comment on what "is dead in the water". <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt <font face="verdana" color="red">3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Fact sheet merger proposal
Although Fact sheet on India was kept at AfD as factual, it's clearly a WP:CFORK of this article. It's also not just a list of statistics, but provides commentary disguised in table form. For example its quality of life section tells us that the following factors affect it: Population (2nd of 217), Population growth rate (102nd of 212), Ethnic diversity index within the country (17th of 160), Cultural diversity index within the country (5th of 160), Labour force (2nd), Human Development Index --given dead last-- (134th of 187). I'd really like to see a wp:secondary source which discusses the quality of life in India in these terms, and particularly with that emphasis on the various indices. It seems to me a WP:SYNT attempt trying to bury the actual indices that are normally discussed; see Quality of life. Not a trace of GDP per capita and so forth. I think this "fact sheet" is mostly a subtle form of POV pushing. Whatever useful material is in there should be merged here (not necessarily all of it), and then it should be turned into a redirect. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose a merger, but fine with a redirect. What should be included here, already is, and article bloat should be a serious consideration for this article. We already have quite a few aspects to include and seem to have a problem finding real estate. However, I agree with every other point made above by the proposer. That said, the CIA factbook etc are also additional sources, so that article doesn't necessarily have to be single sourced either; but as it stands I don't think it merits article space. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff 


 * Support a merge, kinda. That page should not exist. I don't see any good reasons why it should have its own article. I think we should transfer the information from that page to this article, and turn the tables into prose. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the fact sheet? Tijfo098 (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the information on that fact sheet can easily be incorporated into the main India article. That fact sheet appears to be the only one for a country on Wikipedia. I don't see why such a fact sheet is necessary. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We can probably create a new section on the main India article and just move the tables there. However, considering this is a featured article, I'm not sure if that's an appropriate move without consensus. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't merge those big tables into here; they have no place in a "Featured" article. If there is a merge, either any information in the fact sheet that isn't present in this article can be conveyed here, or the fact sheet is simply redirected here with no content being added. It's worth considering a merge with Outline of India, which seems to be what the fact sheet is attempting to be. But again, the latter suggestion would need the information condensing down. Personally I see no reason to merge. -- Peter Talk to me 17:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've renamed this section so it is immediate what we are discussing. -- Peter Talk to me 17:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And I've resurrected the first half of the conversation, which was archived too early by the bot. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact sheet should be deleted. It's mainly just a list of factors by which countries are ranked, describes all of them, and gives India's rankings without any substance whatsoever. Reywas92 <b style="color:#45E03A;">Talk</b> 19:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is some subtle bias to the selection in some sections. See my opening statement (which unfortunately had been archived by the bot after the 1st (undated) reply). Tijfo098 (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you were bold and just redirected it . Any useful info can be merged from its history now. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 November 2012
Please change National Language from None to Hindi because Hindi is recognized as National Language by Government of Hindi on "Hindi Divas".

Parthz8 (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: According to sources, there is no national language in India. Hindi is the "official" language of the government. The two appear to be very different terms. <font face="Batik Regular"><font color="#007FFF">Secret of success · <font color="#967117">talk  17:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Structure of the article is not at all correct
The article does not have sections on Infrastructure: Science & Technology, Education, Healthcare, Transportation, Energy. India is amongst the foremost in these areas. Tourism should be added as well since most of the people search countries before visiting them. For those who think that the article is complete should visit other countries' pages. This matter is far too serious than some people think it is! Many others and I have brought this issue into notice, but no one seems to care to respond. They're are not disputed topics and I find no reason of them not being there. Seems like a deliberate attempt to tarnish a country's image. If you guys don't respond to this, I'm adding the above sections, myself. --BharatRakshak (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You clearly shouldnt just add the sections yourself as you clearly dont have a neutral point of view, you should also reel back the deliberate attempt stuff as well. Just to note the article is not a travel guide and is only an overview of the country, it cant possible mention everything and a lot of stuff is in sub-articles to keep this one a reasonable size. That said if you have a particular form of words you want to be added then your are welcome to propose them here so other editors can comment, as a featured article adding big sections really needs to be discussed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 November 2012
The maps shown are totally false. Jammu & Kashmir and Aurunachal Pradesh are integral part of India. You are creating confusion and hatred among people by showing wrong maps. And who are you(Wikipedia) to draw a map of India as per your whims and fancies?? Change it immediately.

Vishwas.cm (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The map is drawn by taking into account the line of control and the claims by all countries. Wikipedia always presents facts in a Neutral point of view. Read WP:NPOV. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 12:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Selection of images for the Economy section rotations
Reminder: As User:RegentsPark has stated in the nominations section, voting for selecting the images will begin at 00:00 29 September 2012 (UTC). He will have more to say below. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Voting and Selection Protocol

 * 1) All and any editors are welcome to vote for the selection of images.
 * 2) After the nomination period ends all the images will be classified into the following categories: Agriculture, Forestry & fishing, Mining(including Oil & Gas), Index of Economic Growth, Indices of Poverty, Inequality and Nutrition, Software/Internet Technology, Transportation/Infrastucture, Textile, Telecommunications, Retailing, Heavy industries (including Energy), International and Domestic Trade, Banking/Finance.
 * 3) A voter is entitled to vote for a maximum of 16 images: 3 votes for Agriculture, 2 votes for Poverty-Inequality-Nutrition, and 1 vote for each of the remaining 11 categories.
 * 4) The image with highest number of votes in each category will be selected for the template. (Three highest scoring images from Agriculture category; two highest scoring from Poverty-Inequality-Nutrition and the top scoring image of each of the remaining category.)

Discussion on the Protocol
Have I missed anything? -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 20:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well written. Concise and succinct.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Anbu121, Saravask has written somewhere upstairs that the images currently in place in the Economy section could perhaps be replaced as well (or at least compete with newer nominations). The reason for this is that while they were OK by last years standards, they aren't by this year's!  Both have bleached skies for one.  I found two pics on Flickr, which I have nominated as FE15 and 16.  Could you alter the wording of the selection protocol, so that this is also factored in? Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 14:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have classified most of the images for voting. I am not sure where to put FE1, CE11, CE15, ME1. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 18:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing this! FE1 is definitely agriculture.  Milk is now the highest grossing "crop."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Categorization of Images
Agriculture(including milk): FE1, FE15, CE12, CE13, CE14, ME9, AE1, EE2, CE11

Forestry & fishing: FE2, FE4, AE3

Mining(including Oil & Gas): FE3, CE6, MC16

Index of Economic Growth: FE6, AE4

Indices of Poverty, Inequality and Nutrition: FE5, FE7, AE2

Banking/Finance: FE16, ME1, EE1

Software/Internet Technology: FE14, ME6, AE5

Transportation/Infrastucture: FE9, CE2, CE5, CE10, ME3, ME5, ME7, ME8, ME10, AE8, CE15

Textile: FE12, AE6

Telecommunications: FE13, ME14, AE9

Retailing: FE8, AE7

Heavy industries (including Energy): FE10, CE1, CE3, CE4, CE7, CE8, CE9, ME2, ME11, ME12, ME13, MC15

International and Domestic Trade: FE11, ME4

Voting
Voting on the images to be included has begun and will end on 15 November 2012. Add your votes in the table below. Maximum 3 images in Agriculture, 2 in Poverty-inequality-nutrition, and 1 in each of the other sections. Votes will be tallied after 15 November. --regentspark (comment) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Tijfo098's notes: -- Tijfo098 (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * FE15/CE13: both illustrate important points; I suppose FE15 implies CE13 in a way, but the converse also holds. Small plots and lack of mechanization often go hand in hand in subsistence farming. But in some former socialist countries some people still have small plots but pay for some mechanized services. So slight preference for FE15 here.
 * Banking has very little text, so it doesn't seem to deserve a picture.
 * Caption for ME6 needs changes. The HQ of most other big India IT players will do as well.
 * Is there no good picture of Indian railways? Still highly relevant.
 * Are there no prettier middle class places in an Indian city than FE6? I hear these sprung up around the IT areas. Something like AE8 but without the highway taking center-stage. Skyline at Rajiv Chowk.JPG
 * AE7/FE8 - both are good, the captions could be combined. Slight preference for AE7 because FE8 looks more like a trinket shop for tourists.
 * FE12/AE6 are both good. FE12 is pretty, but AE6 slightly more representative/informative.
 * ME13/CE9: CE9 is slightly more representative, but the thumbnail is rather ugly...
 * Is there really no good pic of an Indian port?

About middle class & growth pic. What about the one on the right? It's a better pic of FE6 Connaught Place, for the purposes of showing growth IMO. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the one on the right is better than mine (FE6). Thanks!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Banking is already there in the Economy section; so, it certainly needs an image, but you are right, the caption needs work. We had railways earlier, but it didn't seem to fit into any category.  It is a large employer, a large state enterprise, but one fraught with many problems.  Yeah, you are probably right about FE8, but I don't know about trinkets, I'm guessing some of those items are pretty expensive.  Yeah, couldn't find a good clear picture of a port.  I did have one of the Mumbai dock earlier, but the picture was taken on a cloudy day, so I replaced it. Overall, though, I guess, after having set aside more than 1 month for nominating images, I now wouldn't want to start nominating new ones (en mass).  We should probably vote and get done with this, leaving further changes to next year.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Pfly's notes: Also, I haven't thought much about the captions. Perhaps some could be improved, I'm not quite sure. Pfly (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * AE6 (FE12*): These two are among my favorites out of all the pictures, and I wish they could both be used!
 * nil*: I don't really like any of the choices much, but if I had to pick one I suppose it would be FE13, but really it looks like a picture of laundry (upon closer examination, prayer flags); the cell tower is background...
 * FE8 (AE7*): I can't really decide between these. I like the people in AE7 more, but the stuff in FE8 more. I guess I've put FE8 first, but if it matters I'm fine either way.

Saravask's note:
 * FE6 (TE1*): I too prefer File:Skyline_at_Rajiv_Chowk.JPG over FE6. Voting for FE6 only because I'm not too keen on seeing AE4 get selected. Saravask 18:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Closing Notes:
 * The agriculture category had a tie to select two among the three AE1, EE2, CE12. AE1 and EE2 have been selected by virtue of resolution size. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 18:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 November 2012
There should be a subsection on child labour in economy as it concerns millions. Sarcelles (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Space Program
The Indian Space Research Organisation is the primary space agency of the Indian government. ISRO is amongst the six largest government space agencies in the world, along with NASA, RKA, ESA, CNSA and JAXA. Its primary objective is to advance space technology and use its applications for national benefit.[2]

Established in 1969, ISRO superseded the erstwhile Indian National Committee for Space Research (INCOSPAR). Headquartered in Bangalore, ISRO is under the administrative control of the Department of Space, Government of India.

ISRO has achieved numerous milestones since its establishment. India’s first satellite, Aryabhata, was built by ISRO and launched by the Soviet Union in 1975. Rohini, the first satellite to be placed in orbit by an Indian-made launch vehicle, SLV-3, was launched in 1980. ISRO subsequently developed two other rockets: the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) for putting satellites into polar orbits and the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) for placing satellites into geostationary orbits. These rockets have launched numerous communications satellites, earth observation satellites, and, in 2008, Chandrayaan-1, India’s first mission to the Moon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.48.233 (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. The space program is very much an integral part of the country and needs to be included in the article, though only after it has been approved at the talk page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

and stop beating them as well especially that caste whos job is to pick up sh*t — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.8.209 (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)  Striking unconstructive opinion of IP on topic, not on discussion TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 December 2012
I requested a subsection on child labour on 24 November 2012. However, this was archived without an response. Sarcelles (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Dear Sarvajna, it does not surprise me that you have removed the link to the Thompson Reuters Foundation study of women's well-being in G20 countries. However it saddens me. I came to this wikipedia page to find some information to help me understand issues in the news. I did not find it. I feel my update was reasonable as it was modelled on a very similar entry in the page for the United States. It's great that you are monitoring this page so assiduously ;-) Best Regards Alnair64 (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the section was of society in India, you added something that I felt was not very generic. I am not saying that whatever you added is not notable, you can add the same thing in Women in India. --sarvajna (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

open defecation
I think there's an important fact that has been left unmentioned, could someone add it in proper english? According to WHO and UNICEF, India has 626 million people who practice open defecation. This accounts for 59 per cent of the 1.1 billion people in the world who practice open defecation and make India the leading country in this field. Sources: http://www.unicef.org/media/files/JMP-2010Final.pdf http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/jmp2012/fast_facts/en/index.html Xxxnmxxx (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 January 2013
Constitute Of India The Constitution of India is the supreme law of India. It lays down the framework defining fundamental political principles, establishes the structure, procedures, powers, and duties of government institutions, and sets out fundamental rights, directive principles, and the duties of citizens. It is the longest[1] written constitution of any sovereign country in the world, containing 448 [Note 1] articles in 22 parts, 12 schedules and 97 amendments. Besides the English version, there is an official Hindi translation. Dr B.R. Ambedkar is widely regarded as the father of the Indian Constitution.

The Constitution was enacted by the Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949, and came into effect on 26 January 1950.[2] The date 26 January was chosen to commemorate the Purna Swaraj declaration of independence of 1930. With its adoption, the Union of India officially became the modern and contemporary Republic of India and it replaced the Government of India Act 1935 as the country's fundamental governing document. The Constitution declares India to be a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic, assuring its citizens of justice, equality, and liberty, and endeavours to promote fraternity among them.[3] The words "socialist" and "secular" were added to the definition in 1976 by constitutional amendment.[4] India celebrates the adoption of the constitution on 26 January each year as Republic Day.[5]

Simplelion (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not clear what text you wish to change or where you would like to insert new text. Do note that this is a summary article and that there is a detailed article Constitution of India on this subject which may be a better place for lengthy details. --regentspark (comment) 15:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The national game/sport of India is Hockey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzeva (talk • contribs) 16:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Link
Repuplic of India has a separate article about science and technology but i think most of the visitors could not notice that,then i think we need to provide a link from this main article but i am not sure in which section we put it.Please suggest. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 18:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Update on Indian Economy and Telecommunications Data
Hi All, here are the updates on the required statistics about the Indian Economy, Electricity, Communications, etc (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html). Since many experts are handling this section, I hope you all will find the information really useful. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.193.170 (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

in various subtle guises
The name of the country is Bharat in many languages. The subtle guise part is meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.95.48 (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure those language wikipedias use Bharat. This is the English Wikipedia and we're primarily interested in the names of countries as they are in English. --regentspark (comment) 17:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not so. See the pages like Japan, etc.
 * Editors and administrators on Wikipedia has decided on this policy, which is not uniform at all.111.91.95.40 (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So its written right there "Bhārat Gaṇarājya". What more do you want? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 12:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Refer to archive pages - these are full of discussions on the topic and how the consensus was evolved. The editor RegentsPark is misleading perhaps because the name of the country is Bharat in English as well.111.91.95.40 (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a demand, make it clearly. If you are simply chatting, i prefer arts. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 16:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In the Etymology section, the article claims that the name Bharat "is used by many Indian languages in various subtle guises". I think what 111.91.95.40 is pointing out is that there are no "subtle guises" as the article claims. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please do not misinterpret. I clearly stated that Bharat is also the name of India in English. Rest is nonsense propaganda.111.91.75.62 (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"India that is Bharat" - see Constitution of India, Article 1; the names are used alternatively. Both names, with Bharat in Devnagri, properly feature at the begining of the "India" article on Wikivoyage. So what is the objection here, on the mother project, pray? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.69.95 (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is there no section on Science and Technology?
Most pages on countries give a description of the history and present state of Science and Technology in a separate section. Given the enormous contributions that India historically made to math, astronomy, medicine, engineering, metallurgy and physics, I think this page deserves a section on Science and Technology. The section should also definitely point out the current poor state of Indian scientific research. Apalaria (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is different section exist Science and technology in India but i think we need to provide a link from here as i mentioned above because most of the visitors do not notice it.So please suggest in which section we put it. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 11:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 January 2013
Please change the per capita income of India from the present $1388 to $1514(rounded off). Here is the latest update(October 2012) from the official IMF site.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2010&ey=2017&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=97&pr1.y=15&c=534&s=NGDPD,NGDPDPC,PPPGDP,PPPPC&grp=0&a=

120.61.7.163 (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not done. I believe that the $1514 number for 2011 is an estimated number while the 1388 for 2010 is an actual number. If you can find a source with the actual per capita income, that would be useful. --regentspark (comment) 18:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Good work
Good work guys on the article. It is good to see a bigger article which is more detailed. In the past, there was an obsession by some wikipedians about keeping the article small and in a summary format in order to covet the featured article status. But the summary format was horribly uninformational and reflected poorly on India itself. Most countries have very long and detailed articles and I cant see why India cannot have the same. Cygnus_hansa (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 February 2013
Economy of India

Trishant Shukla (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. <font face="Impact">TBrandley (what's up) 06:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Better Photos
Maybe the photographs used for the Cultural section does not nearly reflect the breadth and depth of Indian Culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.254.52.86 (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

India sent a mission to Mars
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: India will this year send the first mission to Mars. "In 2013. the plan has several space missions, including India's first mission to Mars, and the launch of our communications satellites, "said the President of India Pranab Mukherjee. India in October to send into orbit the Red Planet mission unmanned and is expected to cost $ 83 million. Five years ago, an Indian satellite Chandrayaan has found evidence of water on the Moon.93.137.34.254 (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 February 2013
shivam2475 08:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  — daranz [ t ] 09:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Etymology
The word INDIA appears in the old testament of Bible two times, in the Book of Esther (2 times at Esther 1:1, Esther 8:9). Also the word INDIAN appear in new testament of Bible one time at Revelation 18:13. I suspect therefore the earliest appearance of the name is in Hebrew language the word Hod′du (related to Hindu). The book of Esther relates to Persian King Ahasuerus (486-465 BCE) and was written by contemporary Jewish man namely Mordecai. More details found here. Just thought this information may be useful to article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by സ്നേഹശലഭം (talk • contribs) 02:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)